I attended the Wisconsin Republican Party convention in Milwaukee over the weekend, and with the cobwebs finally gone from my skull, I have some thoughts:

* – Mark Neumann apparently thinks he’s running for the wrong office.  It appears he is running to be 8^th grade class president, not governor of Wisconsin.  Think about it – he began his campaign by starting a ludicrous rumor about Scott Walker dropping out of the race to run for lieutenant governor.  Then he started putting out goofball press releases bragging about all his phony Facebook followers and about how his website was winning awards for its design.  At his next press conference, I fully expect him to announce that Justin Bieber is totally dreamy.

Neumann did build up some goodwill during the convention by pledging that he would support whoever the GOP nominee would be.  This was likely in response to rumors that Neumann would run as an independent after losing the primary to Scott Walker, thereby handing the election to Democrat Tom Barrett.  (Many people still blame former Libertarian Ed Thompson for stealing votes from Republican Scott McCallum in 2002, which handed the election to Jim Doyle – who won with only 44% of the vote.)

But whatever goodwill Neumann garnered by vowing to support Walker, he lost by pulling a stunt in which his supporters picketed outside the Frontier Airlines center, claiming they were denied entrance.  Of course, anyone that wasn’t credentialed was denied entrance, not just Neumann’s supporters.  (Owen Robinson and Deb Jordahl had these angles covered.)

All in all, it looks like Republicans are where they were before the convention.  Walker is the huge favorite, Neumann plans to continue to go negative on him on petty issues.  And for those who believe Neumann isn’t running as an independent, I give you Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who proclaimed on national television that he wasn’t going to run outside the Republican party, then two weeks later, announced that he was doing just that.

* – Ironically, there were two people who earned my newfound respect by their reaction to their damaged campaigns.  Obviously, Dick Leinenkugel’s popularity increased tenfold when he pulled out of the U.S. Senate race and endorsed new entrant Ron Johnson.  That was really the only way the ex-Jim Doyle cabinet member could have earned a standing ovation at the GOP Convention.

But I was equally impressed by Lieutenant Governor candidate Rebecca Kleefisch, who finished last among the four Lt. Gov candidates on the first delegate ballot. The first ballot came in with Rep. Brett Davis at 37.5 percent, Superior Mayor Dave Ross at 25.5 percent, former Green Beret Ben Collins of Lake Geneva with 13.78 percent, and Kleefisch with 13.69 percent – which bumped her off the ballot. (Davis won the final ballot over Ross by 14 percent.)

I can only imagine how tough it was for Kleefisch to suffer such a defeat, given the time and effort she’s put into her campaign.  But as I walked out of the convention hall, there she was – still smiling and shaking hands.  As Alec Baldwin once said it takes these to take a hit and keep a brave face – and no matter how badly she felt at the time, she kept on working.  I found that monumentally impressive.  (Of course, I sobbed inconsolably after watching “The Lion King” for the first time, so I might just be a world class pansy.)

* – Apparently, there are twenty-six GOP candidates running in the 8^th Congressional District against Democrat Steve Kagen.  And I kept hearing about how State Representative Roger Roth is everyone’s frontrunner, but I didn’t see Roth anywhere near the convention.  There may have been signs and stickers that I missed, but it was hardly the convention presence I expected.

On the other hand, former State Representative Terri McCormick was everywhere, shaking hands and talking with delegates.  Then again, maybe I just noticed her more, as I was afraid she might run over and karate chop me in the eyeballs after I wrote this post about her.

* – Everyone knows that all the real convention action happens at the candidate hospitality suites, which serve up free drinks and entertainment.  It seemed the most popular suite was that of former lumberjack Sean Duffy, as it featured a game called “hammerschlagen.”  In the game, contestants stand around a tree stump and attempt to hammer nails into it by using the pointed end of a hammer.  The first one to hammer their nail all the way in wins.  (Naturally, the first time I stepped up and took a swing, I hammered my nail in in one shot.  ONE SHOT, BRO! This led to a long evening of trash talking on my part.)

One might question the wisdom of mixing alcohol with pointy hammers – but I’m certain 9-1-1 was on speed dial all along.

I actually did get to spend some time talking to Duffy and even more time talking to his wife, Rachel Campos-Duffy.  They seem like wonderful, genuine people with a beautiful life and adorable family.  Come to think of it, I think I hate the Duffys.

(SIDE NOTE: My apologies to the Dan Kapanke for Congress hospitality suite-goers.  They had a game set up where you could hit a baseball, and if you hit a sign on the wall, you won a t-shirt.  I apparently hit the ball a little too hard, and it caromed off the wall and drilled an intern in the head.  I was then asked to leave.  I sincerely apologize to everyone involved – I tried to swing lighter, but couldn’t make contact.  Anyway.)

* – Wispolitics was in attendance, and conducted their usual straw poll of delegates.  (One of the question on the poll was “Do you support the Tea Party movement?”  Which caused my friend Mike to wonder if at the Democrat Convention, they’ll ask “Do you support ACORN?”)  I was surprised to see that among delegates’ preference for president, Representative Paul Ryan finished fourth (behind convention speaker Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney.)  What’s most surprising is that Ryan finished fourth despite not being on the ballot.  People actually wrote his name in.  Sadly, Ryan had to leave the convention after the death of his mother-in-law.

* – Finally, a special shout-out to Reince Priebus and the whole staff at the Republican Party for putting on a first-class event.  Especially since this was one of the largest conventions in history.  The stress on these people to keep things running smoothly is immense, and they deserve a lot of credit.

As a writing assignment, I was actually going to attend the Democratic Convention in Madison in a couple weeks.  I e-mailed one of my Democrat friends to see if that was feasible, and he responded by asking if this was some kind of Hunter S. Thompson stunt.  I said no, but that I did plan on dropping a lot of acid before I went.

“A ‘gaffe’ is when a politician tells the truth”  – Michael Kinsley

On Friday of last week, Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker issued a statement indicating his opposition to the newly minted Arizona immigration law. The law, which has set off a firestorm of narrow but dedicated opposition, would allow law enforcement officers to demand proof of American residency for individuals they stop for just cause. Polls show that nearly 70% of Arizona residents support the law, due to the societal costs illegal immigration places on the taxpayers of that state.

Within two days, Walker’s campaign issued a statement changing his position on the law. Walker indicated that he now supports Arizona’s immigration reform efforts after talking it over with Arizona officials, saying “the amended bill provides adequate protections against racial profiling and discrimination.” Walker now says that if he were the Governor of Arizona, he would sign the bill into law.

Now, I personally don’t disapprove of the Arizona law. Clearly, their legislature needed to do something to call more attention to the fact that their courts, prisons, and social services are being strangled by illegal immigration.

But when I heard Walker’s first position, I was actually pretty proud of him for taking an unpopular stand. Finally, after arguing about completely fabricated issues, there was an issue on which the GOP primary candidates could duke it out.

There is actually a small but fairly well-reasoned contingent of conservatives that would support alternative measures to the current Arizona law (Karl Rove among them.)  Despite the Left’s dismissal of George W. Bush as a right wing ideologue, it was actually Bush that proposed the “guest worker” plan in 2004 (accurately recognizing, I think, that we’re not just going to pack up 12 million illegals and ship them home), which was promptly burned to the ground by his own party.

I thought Walker might be following the Jack Kemp “bleeding heart conservative” blueprint, which earned Kemp a great deal of respect in minority circles. Kemp and his Empower America cohort Bill Bennett were outspoken proponents of immigration, calling immigrants “a blessing, not a curse.” In 1994, Kemp and Bennett opposed California ballot Proposition 187, a measure to bar illegal immigrants from obtaining public services.

Given the large Hispanic population in Milwaukee, the Kemp/Bennett model actually makes some sense for Walker. From a conservative perspective, these giants of the movement have shown that you can buck the Republican establishment and maintain your popularity. Plus, counseling against alienating the fastest-growing voting bloc in the nation isn’t necessarily bad advice.

When Walker spoke out against the law, I believe he was saying what he actually thought. It’s not as if the law was passed a day before he issued his initial statement – he had two weeks to think about it. He simply looked at the polling and saw that his position was likely unsustainable in a hotly contested GOP primary.

Opposing the Arizona law is the wrong position, but it’s certainly not an evil position. We should give candidates more credit when they stand on principle and advocate for things that may not be popular. If politicians cease taking hard stands, we end up with the same boring, poll-tested group of elected officials that we now despise.  At some point, our representatives are going to stand up to public opinion on things like Social Security and Medicare reform – and we shouldn’t dissuade them from pushing forward.

UPDATE: As expected, Walker’s challenger, Mark Neumann, has already began slamming him for his position on the Arizona law.  According to this YouTube ad, Neumann believes it was comments on Facebook that caused Walker to switch his position.  Right.

Were you wondering who the next big leader of the conservative movement in Wisconsin is?  Well, congressional candidate and former assemblywoman Terri McCormick thinks it’s her.

McCormick has issued a press release christening herself as “Wisconsin’s Sarah Palin – ‘Only Better!'”  And what expert in conservatism made the determination that McCormick is better than the current Mama Grizzly herself?

John Nichols at the Madison Capital Times.  You know, “Wisconsin’s Progressive Voice.”  Because they’re big fans of Sarah Palin over there.

So McCormick believes that it somehow helps her credibility to be endorsed by the state’s most liberal (newspaper? website? blog? chat room?)  It makes no sense.  Half the time I read a Cap Times editorial, I’m close to calling 911, thinking Nichols has slipped and suffered a head injury.  So now conservatives should let them choose their candidate?

This is actually a common Nichols trap that McCormick has fallen into.  He picks his GOP favorites only when it allows him to level a cheap shot against the powers that be. In 2002, he suddenly became a big fan of Republican Wisconsin State Senator Bob Welch when he found out Welch was thinking of challenging incumbent Scott McCallum in a primary. Naturally, Welch’s candidacy would have weakened McCallum significantly, which is all the Cap Times really cared about.

In 2006, Nichols bemoaned Republican Scott Walker’s exit from the GOP gubernatorial primary, praising his “moderation” on ethics issues, health care issues, and taxation. Naturally, this was merely an attempt to paint the remaining GOP candidate, Congressman Mark Green, as a bloodthirsty partisan. But just ONE YEAR earlier, Nichols shredded Walker in a column, calling him a “bigot” who wanted to make it harder for people to vote, and his candidacy for governor ”very bad news for Wisconsin.”

But since the left’s’ strategy became contrasting Walker with Green, suddenly Walker became an ACLU card carrying, LaFollette-Era progressive. When he was in the race, he was a “pretty typical Wisconsin Republican,” but the second he left the race, he became “palatable even to moderate voters.”

So this sudden praise of McCormick may be news to her, but she’s just another pawn in a cheap political ploy by the left.  Somehow that didn’t make it into her press release.

This is the same Terri McCormick who, in her book “What Sex is a Republican?” actually rips Congressman Paul Ryan, calling him a “member of the political class” and  “a typical insider.”  In a passage so bizarre it deserves to be reprinted here, McCormick writes that Ryan was actually afraid of her when they sat down for a meeting, and that he was involved in some kind of conspiracy against her:

I was wrong; merit and accomplishment would have nothing to do with our meeting… His shakedown skills were reminiscent of the guttural scenes from the movie Gangs of New York.

Ryan aimed his questions in a young-gun accusatory fashion: “Who are ya? Why are you here? Who do you work for? Vito? Hah– the congressman from New York? I’m going to give him a call.”

That day in 2005 Ryan appeared to be a brash political animal, operating out of fear and survival. Something was motivating him and I was about to find out what it was. Ryan was a member of the political class, a typical insider…

…My opponent’s wife was a former appointee of a GOP governor. She evidently had enough authority to give orders to Congressman Ryan.

(Special thanks to Steve S. at Letters in Bottles for actually reading the book and passing along this nugget.)

Incidentally, that would be the same Paul Ryan who has introduced an unprecedented plan to reform the entire U.S. tax system, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.  It’s hard to imagine anyone more “outsider” than that.  But I guess because Ryan rightfully recognized McCormick as a crazyperson, it means he was operating out of “fear and survival.”  Maybe McCormick would like to further her conservative credentials by denouncing Reaganomics.  Perhaps she has evidence that the Easter Bunny engaged in insider trading with the Cadbury Creme Egg company.

(Incidentally, it was Sarah Palin herself that named Ryan as her favorite Republican.)

Actually, who am I kidding with all this jibber-jabber?  Admit it, you just want to see this video again – perhaps the greatest video in Wisconsin political history:

(UPDATE: McCormick has pulled her video from YouTube.)

I told a friend that McCormick was “crazy versus crazy.”  He replied that crazy called to concede years ago.

(Side note: if there is a runner up to “greatest Wisconsin political video,” it’s this ad run against Congressman Ron Kind two years ago:)

From Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial candidate (and hopeless longshot) Tim John:

Sure, this “rap” sets race relations back 20 years, but it’s funny.

Last week, Congressman Dave Obey shocked the Wisconsin political world when he decided to step down after 41 years of service to the 7^th District.  When asked why he was leaving, Obey gave every reason in the book – he was “bone tired,” he didn’t want to go through reapportionment, he thought more representatives of the “lowest common denominator” (read: Republicans) would be in office, etc.

It just so happens Obey is facing a tough challenge from Ashland County District Attorney Sean Duffy, a Republican.  When asked if he was quitting because he might lose his upcoming race, Obey pointed out that he has won 25 straight races, and wouldn’t lose again.  To emphasize his point, Obey said he made his mind up to retire once the recent health care bill passed.  He said:

“Over the past few years, whenever a member of the press asked if I was contemplating retirement, I would respond by saying that I did not want to leave Congress until we had passed health care reform.  Well, now it has.”

Pressed by reporters, Obey said he would have announced he was leaving sooner if the bill passed in September, as he expected it to.  But he had to announce his retirement later, since the bill passed in March.

So we get it.  Obey had made his mind up to retire months ago, and was just waiting for the health care bill to pass.  Sean Duffy’s campaign had nothing to do with it.

Obey’s emotional speech said one thing.  But his campaign finance reports tell quite another.

With Obey presiding, the health care bill passed, on March 21^st of 2010.  On March 30^th, Obey’s campaign accepted a $4800 in contributions from Brian Goad of Reno, Nevada.  A day later, Obey’s campaign cashed a $1000 check from tennis star Andre Agassi. (Take a minute to let that one soak in.)

In fact, between the health care vote on March 21^st and April 1^st (the last day of the campaign finance report), Obey collected 64 contributions, for a total of $18,230.  (Many of the larger amounts from California and Nevada.)

So if Obey had his mind made up for months to retire after he passed health care, why was he still raising money after the bill passed?  Why was his campaign still depositing $10 and $20 contributions from little old retired teachers in his district?

The reason is simple – Obey may have fully intended to run after the health care bill passed, but saw that he had a fight on his hands.  And he was the poster boy for what had gone wrong with Congress.  Not wanting to leave his office as a loser, he used the bogus health care bill excuse, and everyone lapped it up.

Perhaps more telling will be Obey’s next finance report.  If it shows he kept raising money past April 1^st and into May, when he made his announcement, it will contradict his whole “we finished health care so I decided to retire” line.

Surely, candidates say things of dubious veracity all the time – but there’s a reason Obey has to sell this whopper.  He can’t admit that he had any part in the electoral debacle that is about to befall his fellow Democrats.

(SIDE NOTE: On Andre Agassi’s campaign finance entry, he lists himself as a “Philanthropist.”  That must be from his tireless work teaching young people about the dangers of hair extensions.)

UPDATE:

Obey’s finance report also showed that he spent a whopping $30,000 on a poll on February 8th.  I wonder what that poll told him?  Perhaps the results made him a little more “bone tired” than he had been.

So GOP gubernatorial candidate Mark Neumann just released a press release bragging that he has been “strongly endorsed” by Republican U.S. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

I’ve always been skeptical of endorsements to begin with.  I don’t think they mean anything, especially when they come from a politician from another state.  If Tom Coburn walked up to the front door of any house in Wisconsin wearing a name tag that said “Tom Coburn,” the homeowner would hand him a plumber’s wrench and tell him to get to work fixing the toilet.

Furthermore, this may not be all that helpful to Neumann, since one of the knocks against him is that he’s only held a federal office.  He’s running to be our governor now – and what that has to do with Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is anyone’s guess.

But I’m more enthralled by the idea that now a mere endorsement simply isn’t enough.  Now, you have to be strongly endorsed.  Exactly what makes a STRONG endorsement different than a regular one?  Did Tom Coburn yell his endorsement really loudly?  Did he interrupt a delicious meal in order to make the endorsement?  How does one measure such a thing?

So here’s my idea:

In order to make sure we’re not just overstating these endorsements, there should be a way we can get politicians to actually PROVE how “strongly” they feel about other candidates or their own legislation.  We set up a TV show on C-Span or WisconsinEye that tests how far politicians are willing to go to prove the intensity of their political will.

For instance, we would only allow politicians to say they “strongly” endorse someone else if they are willing to eat a plate of cow brains.  Do you have a congressperson who says they “intensely” oppose cap and trade?  Well let’s see if their opposition is intense enough to eat this bowl of centipedes.  Would Tom Coburn say he “strongly” endorses Mark Neumann if he had to prove it by running through the Wisconsin capitol wearing a Mark Neumann Speedo?  We should find out.

Otherwise, words are just words.  Let’s see who’s willing to back them up.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are in for a long campaign season.

It’s only March, and we’re already getting ridiculous articles like this one, which attempts to criticize gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker for buying meals using privately-raised campaign funds for himself, staffers, and supporters.  I’m not supporting any specific candidate, so let me add that this article would be preposterous if it were about Mark Neumann, if it were about Tom Barrett, if it were about Russ Feingold, or whomever. (They’re still talking about the epic roast beef sandwich Feingold ate on the campaign trail in 1992.  Turned his whole campaign around.)

Let’s just take the most obvious points first:

Walker has been running his campaign for governor for about 18 months – his competitors, Mark Neumann and Tom Barrett, have been running theirs for about six months apiece.  So it should shock no one that Walker has spent more money on food and beverages.

Secondly, Walker’s message of frugality deals with the use of public funds – the article states so right there in the first paragraph:

“Republican Scott Walker wants supporters of his campaign for governor to join his “brown bag movement” to show how serious he is about cutting government waste and spending.”

Clearly, campaign funds are privately raised from donors – so it’s a completely different type of expenditure.  How Walker spends his campaign money is really between him and the people who have donated money to his campaign.

And it appears almost all of that food and drink spending is either for his campaign workers or to hold fundraisers in order to raise even more money.  I would bet somewhere in the vicinity of 100% of Walker’s donors would be okay with his campaign using their money to hold events to raise money from even more people.  It may shock the press to know that it takes money to raise money – primarily for overhead for campaign events.

What’s perhaps even most ridiculous is the quote from “good government expert” Jay Heck, who suddenly has become an expert on how Walker should spend his privately raised funds.  It’s laughable that Heck is somehow looking out for Walker’s donors.  Keep in mind – Heck advocates for taxpayer financing of campaigns, meaning he’d be much happier if Walker was buying his staff sandwiches with your tax money, and not from private sources.

I would have loved to be in the meeting where they cooked up this idea to “expose” Walker’s “hypocrisy.”  I know newspapers are having staffing troubles, but there had to at least be someone around to do even the most cursory fact checking.

And, course, what does any of this have to do with how a candidate is going to create jobs or balance the budget?  Nothing.

I know, I know – we’re all sick of hearing about Tommy Thompson and whether he’s going to run for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Russ Feingold.  I will continue to say he’s out until he’s not.

But IN THE EVENT he’s in, a friend of mine in the legislature passed on a suggestion about how he should do it:

It’s May 22, 2010, at the Republican state convention in Milwaukee.  After all the candidate speeches, Senate frontrunner Terrence Wall strides up to the podium to raucous applause.  The crowd settles to a hush, and Wall begins his speech.  He speaks softly at points, and occasionally builds to a crescendo.  Finally, at the end of his speech, he’s ready to accept the party’s nomination.  At the top of his voice, he shouts…

“AND I AM HONORED TO ACCEPT THE PARTY’S…..”

Then, in mid-sentence, some loud music starts to play, interrupting Terrence Wall’s speech.  Someone from the from the Winnebago County delegation yells “WAIT – ISN’T THAT TOMMY THOMPSON’S MUSIC?”

Over the past few years, we’ve had plenty of discussion in Wisconsin about how we should vote – should we require photo ID?  Should we use electronic voting machines?  Allow early voting?  And despite all this discussion, it seems difficult to change anything, as these laws are so ingrained in our tradition.

But with all of this information floating around, it’s easy to lose track of the fact that there are other states out there that have completely different voting systems.  A friend of mine pointed out this website from North Carolina, where you actually have to declare yourself a member of a party.  You can go to that website, search for any registered voter in North Carolina, and you’ll get their name, address, how often they vote, and what party they belong to.

Naturally, there are plenty of states that require voters to register with a political party.  But can you imagine the heads exploding in Wisconsin if the state proposed to make voters’ party preferences public?  There’d be a riot.  Wisconsin is, after all a state where lawmakers even object to having individuals’ criminal records posted online.  It seems that in our state, people are more reticent about disclosing something as private as their party identification.  (And if you’re a Republican living in Madison, or Democrat living in Waukesha County, keeping your party preference on the DL may be mere survival.)

So let’s take this thing for a spin.  Think of famous North Carolinians:

It appears Ralph Dale Earnhart, Jr. is a REPUBLICAN.

Not surprisingly, John and Elizabeth Edwards are DEMOCRATS.

Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue cover model Brooklyn Decker is a REPUBLICAN.

There are too many Michael Jordans to know which one is the real one.

Julius Peppers of the Carolina Panthers is a DEMOCRAT.

Anyway, you get the idea.  Feel free to go look up your favorite North Carolinian.

In this week’s Isthmus, my friend and colleague Marc Eisen explores a very topical point: whether a Republican gubernatorial candidate can win in Wisconsin.  After all, it has been since 1984 that Wisconsin has voted for a Republican presidential candidate, and since 1998 that it elected a GOP governor.

In his conclusion, Eisen posits that it may be ultra-liberal Dane County that decides the election.  He says:

All this boils down to a curious brew in Wisconsin. Republican candidates who pull too hard to the right just can’t win a statewide election. They’re buried by the huge Democratic margin in Dane County…

Dane County’s hyper-Democratic turnout could be a dream killer for conservatives in 2010. What could counter it is a pervasive sense of economic insecurity next fall. Worried voters will look for candidates who they feel can turn things around. That alone could make conservatives triumphant.

But is that true?  Do statewide democratic candidates rack up insurmountable vote totals in the City of Madison and Dane County?

When explaining statewide Wisconsin elections to people, I’ve always simplified things by arguing that liberal Dane County and Conservative Waukesha County cancel each other out.  Then, it becomes an electoral battle between the City of Milwaukee and the State of Wisconsin.  But am I right?

Let’s take a look at Dane vs. Waukesha Counties in the 2006 gubernatorial election, between Jim Doyle and Mark Green:

As can be seen above, Doyle out-polled Green by 40,518 votes in the two counties.  (Doyle won Dane County by 91,359, and Green won Waukesha by 50,841.)  That margin accounts for 1.9% of the total statewide vote.  Doyle eventually won statewide head-to-head with Green with 53.7% of the vote.

Yet there’s an important point to be made here:  2006 was a heavily democratic year. With the War in Iraq still on the minds of voters in the state, Doyle beat Green handily, Republicans in the Wisconsin Senate lost 4 seats (and their majority), and the State Assembly, in which the GOP had once held a double-digit lead in seats, came within a hair of switching to the Democrats.  (It eventually did in 2008.)

If the polling that we’re seeing now is correct, 2010 looks to be more ideologically balanced than the last two elections.  Perhaps Republicans may even have an edge, with the economy still in bad shape and voters turning against sweeping health care reform.

So let’s look at a more balanced election, and how the two counties match up in non-Democratic avalanche years.  Take the last Attorney General election, in which Republican J.B. Van Hollen narrowly edged Kathleen Falk:

In this more balanced matchup, it is clear that the two counties essentially did cancel each other out.  Between them, Falk ended up with a net gain of a scant 3,425 votes – or less than .2% of the statewide vote.

So if we do see a more ideologically balanced election, this seems to be more representative of what we’d be looking at.  Dane and Waukesha Counties duel to a draw, and Milwaukee and Wisconsin face off to pick the victor.

In the 2010 gubernatorial election, this is made even more interesting by the fact that the two most likely candidates are both local government officeholders in Milwaukee (Scott Walker and Tom Barrett.)  So, depending on how they split the vote in their home territory (and Walker should do much better than GOP candidates of years past, seeing as how he’s won 3 countywide elections there as a conservative), it will most likely come down to that last fish fry in Osceola.

(And yes, I am aware that Mark Neumann is still in the GOP field for governor, but there’s a better chance of Liberace showing up and playing at my next birthday party than there is of Neumann winning the GOP nomination.)

Back in August, we profiled Dan Mielke, who is running against Sean Duffy for the Republican nomination to take on long-time Democratic Congressman Dave Obey in 2010.  When we last left Mielke, he was discussing his qualifications for office:

Mr. Duffy is “more of a polished, celebrity-style politician,” Mr. Mielke said. “I’ve got a beard, and I’ve worked my whole life.”

With the issue of whether Mielke has a beard being settled, he’s now moved on to what he believes to be the “smoking gun” that’s going to take Duffy down: the issue of gay marriage.  Over the weekend, Mielke posted the following video (unironically titled “Sean Duffy Exposed), which purports to be “evidence” that Duffy supports gays settlin’ down:

UPDATE: The original video was removed from YouTube for copyright infringement, as it included video from the original movie.  It has been replaced by this interesting Mielke campaign video, in which he describes the scenes himself:

Now you may watch that and say, “that just looks like a guy being supportive of one of his gay friends.”  And I think you’d be right.  It seems to be a stretch to expect people to watch that video and come away with the impression that Duffy is somehow the Adam Lambert of Wisconsin politics.

In fact, Mielke may be accomplishing the opposite of his intention with this video.  He might actually be strengthening Duffy’s position in the general election. (And make no mistake, Duffy is going to win this primary – despite being beardless.)

First of all, it seems that public opinion is going to eventually shift over to being in favor of some sort of legal recognition of same-sex unions.  A recent WPRI poll found:

“42% of people 18 to 35 favored legalizing gay marriage, compared to 24% of 36-to-64-year-olds and 15% of those 65 and older. Civil unions, but not marriage, were favored by 29% in the younger group, 33% in the middle group and 34% in the older group. But 40% of the older group opposed either possibility, compared to 36% of 36-to-64-year-olds and just 28% of adults 35 and younger.”

As the older voters move on and younger voters show up more reliably at the polls, it seems likely that policies will eventually change at is applies to gay marriage.

But even beyond that – Mielke’s message is essentially “Sean Duffy is fair and open-minded.”  And that’s the kind of endorsement that Duffy couldn’t pay enough money for in the general election.  It’s almost as if Mielke is on his payroll.  Maybe Mielke’s next move is to accuse Duffy of being too critical of the failed stimulus plan – or to hammer Duffy for being opposed to higher taxes.  (In a bizarre section of his website, Mielke actually does criticize Duffy’s position on abortion.  Apparently, properly recognizing that Congress can’t just pass a bill making abortion illegal makes Duffy a “RINO.”)

I’ve always thought that this is the next step in competitive campaigns – getting paper candidates to run for office that make the frontrunner look better.  If you’re running a serious campaign, why not pay some guy to run against you and serve as your foil?  It would actually be good practice for Congress, where Representatives spend all night in an empty chamber having fake “debates” with each other for the benefit of the C-Span cameras.  (These usually involve two members of the same party asking each other questions like “Congressman, how is it possible that you can be so insightful about health care?”)

On a final note, I think it’s pretty classless that Mielke would use clips of Duffy’s wife to attack Duffy.  That is all.

It appears the Rod Kindler for Governor campaign has begun.

A couple of weeks ago, after Governor Doyle announced he wouldn’t be seeking a third term, I wrote a column handicapping the potential Democratic candidates.  (A column, incidentally, in which all my observations were verified by Democrat friends of mine – their only complaint was that I wasn’t hard enough on Lt. Gov Barb Lawton.)  In the column, I joked that Congressman Ron Kind is going to go the extra mile to make Wisconsinites forget that he ever served in Congress – including changing the name on his Congressional website to “Rod Kindler.”

Yesterday, Kind began his Don-Draper-style image makeover by releasing a statement almost as comical – although it’s unlikely it was intended to elicit laughs.  From Wispolitics:

U.S. Rep. Ron Kind said the fact he hasn’t been part of the political process in Madison could be a strength for his potential guv run.

[…]

“Having a fresh perspective, a fresh pair of eyes taking a look at some of these issues can be very, very helpful I think in many instances,” he said.

Unless that “fresh perspective” happens to be voting for blowing trillions of taxpayer dollars on bank bailouts, auto takeovers, bogus stimulus funds, new cap and trade taxes…and the list goes on.  Kind will likely answer questions about his tenure in Congress in much the same way that Black Bush answers questions about Iraq – by knocking over some pitchers of water and running out of the room. (Video NSFW, incidentally.)

Regardless of one’s physical proximity to Madison, doesn’t it actually matter what they’ve done while they’ve been nowhere near the city?  The further you are from Madison, the fresher perspective you have?

By this logic, Kind would be even more qualified to be governor had he spent the last decade in a shack in Montana wrestling grizzly bears.  Fishing salmon out of fresh water streams with his teeth would certainly give him a unique perspective on the Wisconsin state budget.  But is it what we need?

It’s a nice try to change the subject away from his voting record in Congress, but will likely yield bitter fruit.  Kind goes on, saying:

Gov. Jim Doyle’s decision not to run gives candidates the chance to run a “look forward campaign, not a look back campaign. A campaign that’s truly about the future of Wisconsin.”

(This is in stark contrast to the race I will run for governor one day, in which I will promise “a stronger five years ago.”)

Oh really?  A politician wants to run a race talking about “the future?”  How novel.  I imagine if Eliot Spitzer ever runs another political campaign, he’ll probably insist on a similar standard.

I still maintain that Kind is the Democrats’ best shot.  And it’s not like he has any option other than to pretend that this mystical, wonderous place known as “Congress” doesn’t exist.  (I always thought that if Representatives rode unicorns to the U.S. Capitol, it would be pretty cool.  And more likely than the stimulus turning the economy around.)

Oh, and by the way, if you want to see an actual video of a guy wrestling a grizzly bear, here it is.  My favorite line is when the announcer accuses the bear of applying an “illegal” choke hold on the Destroyer – like the bear’s supposed to know the rules.  And the bear puts him in a “bear hug.”  Is there any other kind? Fortunately, he gets a coke at the end for his trouble.  Take that, PETA.

(This video precipitated a lengthy discussion between me and my friend Jack, who claims he could wrestle a bear if it was muzzled and de-clawed.  I told him he wasn’t accounting for Victor the Bear’s “swiping power,” which might end up being the name of my fantasy football team.)

The other day, an article showed up in the Washington Times that argued the GOP is going to mount a serious challenge to long-time Democratic Northern Wisconsin Congressman David Obey.  They mentioned the frontrunner as District Attorney and one-time MTV “Real World” star Sean Duffy.  The article says “it is thought” that Duffy would be the first reality show participant to join Congress – obviously oblivious to Flavor Flav’s two terms in the U.S. Senate.

But the highlight of the story comes at the very end, when the article dutifully mentions the GOP longshot candidate, Daniel Mielke.  Mielke gives his rationale for why voters should support him:

While the state party is not taking sides in the Republican primary, the tension between the two Republicans is evident.

“I think we need a candidate who is electable. I believe I’m that candidate,” Mr. Duffy said.

Mr. Mielke countered that his unpolished style would play better with voters disillusioned by Mr. Obey’s work on the stimulus bill.

Mr. Duffy is “more of a polished, celebrity-style politician,” Mr. Mielke said. “I’ve got a beard, and I’ve worked my whole life.”

You hear that voters?  HE HAS A BEARD.

Certainly a good enough reason to support Mielke’s hirsute candidacy.  Although if Mielke wins the primary, he’d have to go against Dave Obey, who…ALSO HAS A BEARD.  It would be a Old-timey Northern Wisconsin Beard-Off.

Although clearly, Obey’s beard isn’t good enough to earn him a spot in the Wisconsin Historical Society’s “Great Beards of Wisconsin” online exhibit.  (That’s not a joke – it actually exists.)

Eat your heart out, Edward Thomas Owen!

(Full disclosure: I am an occasional beard wearer myself, although I have not accepted any campaign contributions from my beard.)