An Open Letter to National Conservative Groups from Wisconsin’s Conservative Bloggers
To: Chris Chocola, Club for Growth
The Honorable Jim DeMint, junior Senator from the Great State of South Carolina
It is with great disappointment that we have learned of the efforts of some conservatives on the national level to try to dictate to Wisconsin conservatives their choice for the United States Senate seat being vacated by Democratic Senator Herb Kohl. This is a tremendous opportunity for Wisconsinites to elect a second conservative senator worthy of holding the office, and one that Wisconsin conservatives will take very seriously. This is not only a choice of ideology but of character, and it is our responsibility to bring Mark Neumann’s lack of character to your attention.
While we do not question Neumann’s past contributions to conservatism while he was a Congressman, his actions during last year’s campaign are completely unbecoming of a conservative candidate.
We respectfully request the national conservative groups and individuals to take a second look at their endorsement of Neumann. We ask that since many of them missed the opportunity to come to Wisconsin during the recent battles over collective bargaining for state employees and the recall elections, they come to Wisconsin now to talk to true Wisconsin conservatives to find out what they think of Neumann before attempting to foist their choice upon Wisconsin.
We do not write this under direction or duress from any candidate, potential candidate, or candidate’s campaign. We write this under the knowledge that as the primary for United State Senate commences in earnest, we will likely go our separate ways and support any number of candidates. That is our right as Americans.
If the past election in Wisconsin has shown national conservatives anything, it is to trust in the faith of Badger State conservative activists. We had the foresight to supply the movement with current leaders and rock stars like Janesville Congressman Paul Ryan, Ashland Congressman Sean Duffy, Green Bay Congressman Reid Ribble, Governor Scott Walker, U.S. Senator Ron Johnson, and even Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.
That is just in the past two years, and we assure you, there are plenty more where they came from.
Thank you,
(The Undersigned)
Owen Robinson
Blogger, Boots and Sabers, since 2003
West Bend, WI
Kevin Binversie
Blogger, Lakeshore Laments, since 2003
St. Francis, WI
James Wigderson,
Blogger, Wigderson Library & Pub, since 2005
Waukesha, WI
Steve Eggleston
Blogger, No Runny Eggs, since 2005
Oak Creek, WI
Patrick Dorwin
Blogger, Badger Blogger, since 2004
Milwaukee, WI
Tim Gray
Blogger, UseYourGrayMatter.com, since 2010
La Crosse, WI
Ben Froland
Blogger, BenFroland.com, since 2009
Neenah, WI
Thank you for stepping up to the plate and saying what had to be said. I agree completely.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 06, 2011 at 0700 hrs
Hear, hear!
(Not that I would have paid attention to them in the first place…)
Posted by dad29 on September 06, 2011 at 0739 hrs
Not to nit-pick, but you probably could have done without the “rock stars” descriptor.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 06, 2011 at 0807 hrs
Well stated.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 06, 2011 at 0820 hrs
Not to nit-pick, but you probably could have done without the “rock stars” descriptor.
Posted by Mr. Pelican Pants on September 06, 2011 at 0907 hrs
I blame Wiggy for that
Posted by steveegg on September 06, 2011 at 0840 hrs
What I find strange here is that there were a number of conservative blogs during the Gubernatorial primary asking Neumann to run against Feingold for Senate, and that this was a better option than running for Governor. Now he’s running for Senate, and he’s suddenly unfit?
From what I can tell, the only thing that Mark Neumann actually did to piss off Conservatives was daring to actually mount a primary campaign at all against Scott Walker. The irony is that you are not complaining that Neumann is being forced upon you, when you would have loved to have Scott Walker run without a primary opponent in the Governor’s race.
Primaries are supposed to be a good thing. At the end of the day, they are supposed to allow the VOTERS to determine who runs. Yet, just as with the governor’s race, there are people in the GOP who want to get people to stop running before the primary ever takes pace, and short circuit and important process… an actual election.
I’ve heard a lot on various blogs about how shameful Mark Neumann is… and very little substance about what he actually did that drew people’s ire. This letter you’ve posted makes vague illusions to some wrong he committed, but skirts around the actual crime.
If his only crime was running a primary campaign, then you need to understand what Democracy is. If he did something else, then come out and say it.
Posted by Nick on September 06, 2011 at 0854 hrs
From what I can tell, the only thing that Mark Neumann actually did to piss off Conservatives was daring to actually mount a primary campaign at all against Scott Walker.
Incorrect. The issue is not that Neumann ran a campaign. It’s that he lied repeatedly both in public and behind the scenes. He lied about being locked out of the convention. He bussed in faux protestors. He lied about Walker’s record. He lied about being dissed by the Washinton County Republican Party headquarters. If you like, search my blog for “Neumann” to find the reports from the time. One of which, the lie at the GOP convention, I witnessed, recorded, and reported on at the time.
This is a matter of conservatives having some standards where we don’t want to be represented by a person of Neumann’s flawed character - especially with so many other good conservatives who could fit the bill nicely.
So yes… Neuman circa 2009 I would have supported for the Senate. I won’t support Neumann circa 2011.
Posted by Owen on September 06, 2011 at 0911 hrs
For the record, the original version of the letter had a “list of grievances.” It was cut due to length
Posted by Owen on September 06, 2011 at 0912 hrs
It was cut due to length? Yeah, I hear the per word cost of electronic media on a personal blog is pretty expensive these days.
Posted by Nick on September 06, 2011 at 0920 hrs
That was a good letter you guys did. I’m assuming the national club for growth is only doing this because there are a bunch of former Neumann staffers on it? No need for CFG to be spending money to rip Tommy Thompson one year out from the primary.
Those guys should let us figure out our nominee and then spend the money against the dems in the general election.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 06, 2011 at 0954 hrs
Cultists.
Posted by Jeff Simpson on September 06, 2011 at 1012 hrs
Look, Nick, you can choose to plead ignorance about what Neumann did. That’s fine.
You can say Neumann’s behavior doesn’t matter. That’s fine too. But facts are facts. And for some of us, it was enough for Neumann to lose our support.
Posted by Owen on September 06, 2011 at 1013 hrs
You were discussed on Bader’s show this morning.
Posted by hsgbdmama on September 06, 2011 at 1143 hrs
Tommy was just on with Belling for a 25 minute interview.
Good stuff. Encourage you to listen to the podcast for hour three part two.
An additional point Tommy made in his favor is Obama. He said he can pull more people out to vote in 2012 to help knock Obama out.
Tommy will cast a vote to repeal Obamacare. He will knock Tammy Baldwin out quickly.
I’m fine with these other GOP types pulling Tommy to the right via a primary. But in the end, this is my guy. 1200 CFG negative ads aren’t going to move me to Neumann.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 06, 2011 at 1801 hrs
I’m not really much of a Tommy fan, but damn if I’ll vote for the likes of a mudslinger like Neumann - no matter how conservative he makes himself out to be. The bloggers got it right (pun intended): Just taking the conservative label isn’t enough. Morals, ideals and standards of personal conduct count too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 07, 2011 at 0548 hrs
While the first post was NOT by me, this is. This letter is one of the funniest I have read in quite sometime. That bastard Neumann running in a primary when everyone knew that Walker was the annointed one. Heck walker was even a good solider and did not run the previous election, he did what he was told and waited his turn. Democracy is all about being told who to vote for by the republican party isnt it?
As for Neumann not being 100% honest I am sure you were just as upset when other republicans do not campaign 10)% honestly. Heck we saw Walker campaign like crazy on ending public unions. I also remember him telling everyone he left milwaukee county bankrupt to right? Or you all must love Gableman that guy was nothing if not honest….o wait!
Posted by Jeff Simpson on September 07, 2011 at 1119 hrs
I’m not much of a Walker guy, but in fairness Jeff, there’s a difference between the exchange that occurs in the give and take of a campaign and talking about a certain level of personal conduct and ethos.
Walker didn’t say he wouldn’t do what he did - what you’re trying to suggest is that a lie of omission is the same thing as outright dishonesty. I would disagree. And at that, I wouldn’t even suggest that what Walker did was a lie of omission. I think anyone who could connect the dots saw Walker’s move coming.
But besides that, Neumann has a long history of being a bit of a jackass. Anyone who was around his ‘98 Senate campaign or his congressional campaigns of the mid-90’s could tell you as much. There’s a fair bit of bullheadedness and narcissism that unfortunately manifests itself in the ways it did last summer.
I’ve long held that the most important thing we can do is elect quality individuals to office. Sometimes that means being willing to say, no matter how much you dislike the direction of the Democratic party, you’re not willing to support just any Republican candidate (or vice versa) because they say the right things. I think this letter is a fine example of that concern.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on September 07, 2011 at 1335 hrs
I agree about electing quality individuals. To be fair though if being a jackass was a disqualifier how many people would be left in state government? 4 or 5 maybe?
I would disagree however on the union thing, he did say unions needed to make concessions, he also said he would work with them. He never had any intention of doing that Hence his “we pulled the administration together the night “before we dropped the bomb”. I dont think anyone thought he would end most public unions and cut 1.6 billion from education. Had he campaigned on that he would have gotten a solid 25% of the vote and never to be heard from again.
I do agree also about holding candidates up to a higher standard. I for one stopped voting for Herb Kohl when he voted to give the telecom companies immunity.
Posted by Jeff Simpson on September 07, 2011 at 1542 hrs
Jeff, no shame in it. If you did not see that Walker would go after public unions, it just means you could not connect the dots. Not really anything to report, there, since he was not even the candidate of the party you voted for is it?
I wrote about Walker trying to end the teacher’s unions while he was still campaigning and most liberal scoffed at the very idea. I had also had long conversations with three different teachers (or teacher spouses in one case) on the topic. All 3 of them were in denial, just like you apparently would not have believed me. They all bemoaned the concessions they thought they would have to make, but flatly denied the possibility of dissolving collective bargaining even though I was arguing that it was the only (Republican)solution to the 3.6 billion dollar structural deficit. Liberals were in denial of the possibility of such a thing. It is no surprise that virtually every liberal fully believes that Walker lied about what he was going to do, because what he did was literally inconceivable to them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 08, 2011 at 0737 hrs
I would agree with you guys that the republicans were salivating over the possibility of ending the unions. The fact is though that scott walker never said he would and he actually campaigned against doing so.
Do not forget it is Scott Walker himself, who testified under oath, that he did NOT campaign on this.
Posted by Jeff Simpson on September 08, 2011 at 0850 hrs
I agree with Owen completely. I will not vote for this guy if he wins the nomination. Tommy does nothing for me either. We need another Ron Johnson, he or she must be out there.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2011 at 0719 hrs
Well if Walker campaigned against breaking up unions, that would have been slimy, because it was pretty clear to me that he was going to do it. I don’t remember any campaigning on keeping public unions intact, where did you get that info? I believe he might have evaded, because he has basic intelligence. If he had campaigned on breaking the unions, he would have faced easily an extra 50 million in attack ads against him from national union money.
Link or reference a speech or article where Walker was shown campaigning for public unions(not specifically police or fire unions). Jeff, I just don’t believe you there.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 09, 2011 at 0752 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146943
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 12:55 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 52
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/18/2013 04:30 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).