Barrett Wants Clean Campaign Pledge
Yeah, this would last about 42 hours.
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett offered a plege Sunday not to attack his fellow Democrats in the recall race for governor, and he asked his opponents to do the same.
The proposal he sent to the other candidates would impose financial penalties on candidates if they mentioned their opponents in ads – or if outside groups attacked Democrats on their behalf.
“As Democrats, we must be united in the only mission that matters: recalling Scott Walker and moving our state forward,” Barrett wrote in a letter to his opponents. “Nearly one million people signed recall petitions as members of a citizen grassroots movement to restore Wisconsin values trampled on by this governor—not to watch Democrats sling mud at one another.”
Um, he does realize this is a DEMOCRATIC primary? This is like asking four dogs not to fit over a piece of bacon that just fell on the floor…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2012 at 2116 hrs
It’s difficult for him to run on the merits of being against Act 10, because it was used in Milwaukee to Milwaukee’s benefit. Instead, you can raise some clean campaign pledge like this and when the other side transgresses (and let’s be honest, most campaigns do, mostly by omission rather than commission), you have an instant scandal. Weak sauce from Mayor Barrett…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 0507 hrs
In other words, please please please do talk about the fact that I used Act10. How does he think he’ll make it through a debate?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 0541 hrs
He was for it *while* he was against it.
It’ll be fun watching him explain that.
:popcorn:
Posted by hsgbdmama on April 02, 2012 at 0546 hrs
This, “he benefitted from Act 10 so he can’t campaign against it” is baloney! As a leader of a government unit he had to benefit from it by the required additional employee contributions. While those monetary gains to governmental unit are welcome to that unit the cuts to that governmental unit by the Governor’s biennial budget more than offset any additional benfit to the unit by the additional contributions. There is planty argue about the way those contributions were obtained as well. They could have been achieved without the upheaval in the state if the goal had been balancing the budget rather than destruction of the unions.
I think they have a shot at the clean campaign pledge primarily because the governor has provided such strong incentive to the Dems to keep their eye on the prize!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 0634 hrs
Barrett had his chance, and he lost. What’s he offering as a reason to nominate him- “I deserve a re-do”?
In any case, he’s obviously not the choice of the unions. If he’s nominated, will the national unions $upport his campaign?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 0733 hrs
Given the open nature of the primary, the GOP could run an operation chaos here if they wanted to and have GOP voters go out for Falk and tip the balance over to her.
I might vote Falk then in the primary. I can’t stand Falk but at least she’d be for something. I just don’t understand the Barrett love here. He’s done a horrible job at mayor and is completely non existent in any respect on the issues of the day. He needs to be selling insurance, and I’m not sure he’d be any good at that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 0752 hrs
It is working in the Massachusetts Senate campaign, but there is no way that this would work here. Outside groups are already in full and have been for over a year. That train has left the station.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 0815 hrs
How about pro-Walker voters turn up in force and write-in Scott Walker’s name on the democrat primary ballot? Is that possible? With Falk and Barrett splitting the dem vote - it could actually work. =)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 0827 hrs
Also cab be read as: “Don’t as me any hard questions”.
I didn’t know there would be any math”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 0851 hrs
I need to learn to TYPE!!
Also can be read as: “Don’t ask me any hard questions”.
and/or
“I didn’t know there would be any math”.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 0856 hrs
The Dems will run a primary candidate for the Republican primary - so you won’t be able to get enough votes to have an impact.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 0911 hrs
The proposal he sent to the other candidates would impose financial penalties on candidates if they mentioned their opponents in ads
So even saying the names Barrett, Faulk, Vinehout, etc constitutes running a dirty campaign. That’s kind of funny.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 1025 hrs
What? No mud slinging?
I want to see the mud sling.
It will reveal the true nature of these 4 Democrats…the raw quest for to be master of the government plantation. I want to see which one of those 4 is willing to flog us private sector tax slaves harder and yell “work faster, peasant!”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 1120 hrs
I must be missing something here. Barrett wants to be governor, but wishes none of his fellow Democrats to be critical of him? And the political action groups also not criticize him? That’s really sad. Reminds me of the Emperor’s new clothes fable. Are Democrat party politics in Milwaukee so insulated from reality that he believes his competitors will accept these terms? Falk would have to be crazy to give Barrett such a pass.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 1121 hrs
Oh great joy and happiness, Dems on the WI stage are likely to be no better than Reps on the national stage. You Reps must be so proud. At least one Dem is asking for civility, that is a higher percentage than Walker. If Barrett won and asked the same thing of Walker, now that would be interesting…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 1315 hrs
Don’t you just love the projection here on the right?
Of course you expect a dirty campaign from the Democrats. It’s the way you people and your candidates roll all the time—Atwater, Rove, Segretti, Jenson, etc.
Crocks that have to be screwed into the ground when they die.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 1548 hrs
How about pro-Walker voters turn up in force and write-in Scott Walker’s name on the democrat primary ballot? Is that possible? With Falk and Barrett splitting the dem vote - it could actually work. =)
Both the WIGOP and Friends of Scott Walker have asked people to not do this, as there is a statute against doing this (having the same person on both parties’ tickets); if it were done, Gov. Walker’s name would be removed from the non-nominated ticket (in this case, the Democrat one).
Posted by hsgbdmama on April 02, 2012 at 1601 hrs
As inviting as it sounds at times to flog you Kevin, I think you do a satisfactory job of self flagellation most of the time. I think that attempting to campaign on issues rather than mud slinging is a worthy goal. But then I have thought all along that working in a bipartisan way and compromising would be preferable to what has gone on over the last year. I think there is a good chance that the mud slinging will be half hearted at best since all the Dems know the real goal is to find a way to unseat the ALEC Koch Bros. anointed flunkie. I would like to see Barrett make the same offer to Walker. It would be refreshing to try to run a campaign based on the wealth of the ideas rather than the wealth of the donors!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 1604 hrs
Dave,
You mean just like the “compromising” Obama did on the monster health care bill?
Why is it that Obama could not “compromise” in the context you suggest?
You don’t have to deny it, you know you want to flog productive America and tell us peasants to work faster.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 1610 hrs
Wonder what the polling look like in a three way race ...
Walker, Barrett, and Falk?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 1649 hrs
Kevin,
You mean the monster health care bill that was based on mandatory insurance similar to Massachusetts under Romney or that the Republicans put forward about 15 years ago to counter the Clinton health care proposal? Sounds like Obama was trying to put forth something the Republicans (at least before their extended tea party) would have found palatable.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 1657 hrs
Big trouble for Walker…just as I predicted.
“A new Rasmussen poll finds that Republican Wisconsin Scott Walker is in trouble of being recalled June 5, with a majority, 52 percent, saying they will vote him out less than two years after he took office and immediately went to work to cut the power of public service unions.
The poll revealed a remarkable shift from February when 54 percent of Wisconsin voters said they would vote against the recall. In today’s poll, just 47 percent said they would vote against recalling the governor. Details will be released at 1 p.m.
Worse for Walker: 53 percent disapprove of his job as governor with a whopping 46 percent saying they “strongly disapprove” of Walker. Majorities of both men and women now support his recall. Rasmussen found that his support among Republicans and conservatives remains strong.
The recall, set for June 5, followed the governor’s effort to limit collective bargaining rights for some public union members.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 1706 hrs
Barrett can request all he wants for a clean campaign. It would behoove his opponents perhaps to limit their barbs—but it’s probably not going to happen. Look at the GOP Presidential field. Santorum, Newt, Romney, etc. and their attack dogs all have tried to destroy one another. No different than the Democratic candidates in a presidential primary. But when Romney (more than likely) becomes the GOP nominee, are the people just suppose to magically forget all of the flaws exposed by his opponents? And are his opponents then going to try to minimize their words that undoubtedly will be used Democratic strategists leading up to November? No, it would be in the best interest of Barrett, Falk, and La Follette to tone down the rhetoric and let the talking heads and the bloggers engage in the war of words.
Mr. Scheunemann—“What? No mud slinging? I want to see the mud sling. It will reveal the true nature of these 4 Democrats.”
No, of course as the pious, rational man that you are, you would refrain from such tactics, right?
Kevin Scheunemann <Kewaskumdq@...> wrote: (June 2007)
The masses are largely uninformed and eat the cotton candy of the day. If you crap on the cotton candy, they will not vote for you.
Crap on the cotton candy after you get elected, because they already ate it.
Anyways, how interesting that some GOP supporters here advocate the running of fake candidates for political office. No outrage over this blatant political game? How is this process aimed at furthering the goals of representative government?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 1719 hrs
So far all I’ve seen is a too clean campaign from Barret’s ultimate opponent. Walker needs to get some ads out showing people what he’s been up against for the last year.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 1757 hrs
“So far all I’ve seen is a too clean campaign from Barret’s ultimate opponent. Walker needs to get some ads out showing people what he’s been up against for the last year.”
Millions of dollars have been wasted on ineffective ads because Walker wants to remain the goody-two-shoes candidate. I’d like to think that seeing he’s trailing badly to whomever his opponent is would wake him up, but I think he’s decided to lose with honor. And lose he will.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 1825 hrs
Interesting ... Madison on-line poll.
Do you support recalling Gov. Scott Walker?
Choice Votes Percentage of 168,511 Votes
Yes, he should be recalled. 29,338 17%
No, he should stay governor. 137,023 81%http://www.channel3000.com/news/29564851/detail.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2012 at 1915 hrs
The mud is already slinging against Barrett, through union money, of course. I would love to see a ‘gloves on’ campaign between Walker and Barrett. That is not possible, because unions can only use slime. They certainly cannot run on ‘Our workers deserve early retirement, double pensions, tenure, free healthcare, vote for your neighborhood Dem so we can again enjoy these basic rights, at your expense.’ As soon as Barrett won the nomination, attack dogs he cannot control would be over the fences attacking the ‘enemy’ who would no longer be him.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2012 at 1129 hrs
“That is not possible, because unions can only use slime. They certainly cannot run on ‘Our workers deserve early retirement, double pensions, tenure, free healthcare, vote for your neighborhood Dem so we can again enjoy these basic rights, at your expense.”
I expect much better from you rather than talking points, Tuerqas.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 04, 2012 at 1852 hrs
I expect much better from you rather than talking points, Tuerqas.
Not really much to say here, greencarman. Are you suggesting something else is possible? I suppose you might consider the Falk ads as less slimey. If they are not slime, I would love to hear the real truth behind the main message given. They show small children and talk about how Falk will restore healthcare that the (inferred)evil Walker has taken away from sick children. Well, the only healthcare to ‘children’ I know of that was cut was the (Doyle?) law allowing parents to keep their 25-27 yr old children on their insurance as ‘minors’ so long as they are still in school. Is there some insurance cut on young children that I don’t know about? That kind of misleading ad that infers that small children are now going without healthcare because of Act 10, but really refers to post College-Age men and women is about as slimey as you can get, IMO.
As long as ads have the sole purpose of misleading with no grounding in real fact, they are slimey(slimier when children are used in the bait and switch). Please point out an ad from union support that is not slime(Feel free to go back to 2000). I doubt most Republicans (or you, greencarman?) had figured out the slimey part of that heavily played (on the stations I watch) ad for Falk emphasizing that Falk will ‘restore healthcare to children’. I have seen noone else talking about it. Maybe I have created a talking point, here, but I am cerrtainly not repeating it.
Please respond, if there is any other truth to the ad, greencarman. I could be wrong as I certainly do not know all of the legislation passed over the last year by heart, but I believe that is the ‘healthcare for children’ cut they are truly referring to as they show 5-6 yr olds. Your silence will prove this point is worth talking about.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 05, 2012 at 0737 hrs
What I am contesting, Tuerqas, is your insistence that “unions can only use slime”. Can we both agree that the GOP and (D) groups equally engage in deception when it comes to ads?
Yes, the content of the ads themselves are misleading, I am not arguing to the contrary. But it is free speech, and it is up to the viewer to determine the validity of those ads.
I do appreciate your civility, and hope you take that comment as being sincere.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 06, 2012 at 0836 hrs
Equally? Have you been paying attention to the union tactics?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 06, 2012 at 0858 hrs
Smeety, when you want to seriously engage in discussion, and not be a partisan hack, let us all know.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 06, 2012 at 1045 hrs
What I am contesting, Tuerqas, is your insistence that “unions can only use slime”. Can we both agree that the GOP and (D) groups equally engage in deception when it comes to ads?
Uhhhh, he’s not saying “Only the unions can use slime.” But rather, all they have to use is slime… which is why he wrote “unions can only use slime.” Is English your second language?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 07, 2012 at 1922 hrs
Very interesting post…
Posted by amberen on April 09, 2012 at 0343 hrs
Um, Jason, when someone says “unions can only use slime”, it means that unions have one way of conducting their business. Moreover, your own statement—“All they have to use is slime”—contradicts yourself. Apparently you cannot interpret a sentence very well.
“The Packers can only pass the football”. The implication here is that the Packers are effective in throwing the ball, not running the ball. I provided an analogy to help you. Thank me later.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 09, 2012 at 1338 hrs
What Jason meant is, however, exactly what I meant. Unions choose only to use slime and misdirection. Both parties use it, and both parties have PACs that specialize in it. Unions specialize in it.
Do you think the Walker ads to date have been slimey? Often, you can tell the neg ads just by their tone without hearing a single word actually said. The union ads pretending to be positive Falk ads are just a different kind of slime. It is all they use. Once again I challenge you greencarman. Find me, anecdotally, even one non-slime ad put out with union money and I will recant my statement. They are not alone. There is a pro-Rep org that only puts out slime, too. The CWG, is it? I get my initials mixed up sometimes.
I am saying that I cannot remember a Dem running on his record as Walker is to date, can you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 10, 2012 at 0833 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 51
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 06/19/2013 08:38 pm
The most visitors ever was 729 on 06/19/2013 11:01 am
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).