Jim Klauser Endorses Scott Walker

Most endorsements don’t mean a lot, but this one does.

This campaign will not be easy. The liberal other side is not above fallacious exaggeration and distortion. Scott needs our support to carry forward and win the election in November (which is not that far away). If you have not already committed, I encourage you to join me in endorsing and supporting Scott Walker for Governor. Let’s straighten out the Doyle-Barrett messes. We can believe in Wisconsin again.

The wheels are coming off the bus over at the Neumann campaign. 

1. I’m not sure the bus ever had any wheels, but this also shows that Klauser just likes to be on the winning side.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2009 at 2252 hrs




2. When Jim Klauser endorsed Mark Green in 2006 over Scott Walker, where were the comments about the wheels coming off the Walker bus?? Was Jim’s endorsement not as meaningful then?

   I like Scott, I support him in this race, and I’ve even kicked in a grand to his campaign…and having said that, one of my criticisms of the GOP is its desire to avoid primary contests and encourage everyone to unify early behind a candidate. As the saying goes, “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.” This is what gave us candidates like Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George HW Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain.

   Primaries are good for parties, and this isn’t Bob Lorge we’re talking about here…Mark is a very credible candidate, and while Scott has obviously earned the respect of the the blogs and core party activists, at this point in 2003 nobody had heard of Tim Michels. At this point in 2007 Hillary was inevitable.

   Also, I don’t buy the argument that this primary will weaken the eventual candidate in the general. If Republicans can’t win in 2010, in this climate, then I’m pretty sure it’s time to just pack up and go home, because if we can’t win statewide now, we’re never going to win…

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 0100 hrs




3. I think we need a primary. I just don’t care for Mark Neumann’s tactics.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 0910 hrs




4. Neuman should make a New Year’s resolution to bow out gracefully.  I have yet to see or hear anyone getting truly fired up about his campaign. 

   Plus, there is too much at stake for the GOP to dump a ton of money into a primary.  People are already talking about a Walker-Barrett match up - let’s have it.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 1124 hrs




5. Yes, in theory primaries are good for parties. However, this isn’t a Presidential election where candidates have several months after a primary election to re-buid their election coffers. In Wisconsin, candidates have less than two months to raise more funds, etc and because of that I do not think Wisconsin primaries are good for parties / candidates.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 1415 hrs




6. The reason you’re not seeing people fired up about a campaign, is because only political nuts like us are even aware of the campaign at this point; most voters do not tune in at all until the handful of months before the election. In 2003/early 04 most people I saw at county party functions were wearing a Bob Welch 04 sticker, and how did that work out for him?

   Also, if the party is so solidly behind Scott, as these comments would indicate, then why the worry about the ‘GOP dumping a ton of money into the primary?’ If the party is already unified, then the funds will dry up for Mark and he will be forced to make a decision, much like Scott made in 06, whether to try to continue an under-manned, under-funded campaign, or drop out of the race. But shouldn’t we at least see a few more fundraising reports before deciding that?

   What hurts parties is when a small group of leaders gets together to decide a nominee, a la New York’s special election last month, rather than letting voters decide on their nominee. Barack Obama was helped in his general election, because he had been forced to campaign in all 50 (or 56?) states and build an organization in each of them, to battle for primary votes.

   Further, Wisconsin’s short general election cycle actually helps the nominee, I believe, by creating a wave of momentum in the weeks leading up to the general. Having Doyle, Falk and Barrett all criticizing McCallum in 02 helped Doyle once he won the primary, and likewise, a primary against Bucher did not hurt Van Hollen’s efforts for AG. In fact, it helped raise Van Hollen’s name recognition and attention all across the state.

   Again, a problem with the GOP is the ‘whose turn is it’ mentality, with a top-down approach to building the party. Respectfully, in my opinion it is a party-building strategy based on an outdated model, much like GM or Chrysler, that relies on centralized authority.

   I think it’s time to embrace more of an eBay model, that instead focuses on empowerment of individuals, welcoming new challenges and ideas, and gives everyone a voice. I think that’s how we win not just in 2010 when the winds are blowing the GOP’s way, but build a sustainable party for the future.

   Of course, that’s just my opinion and I could be wrong…

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 1538 hrs




7. I agree with Troy.  Nobody’s paying attention.  I think proof of that is the fact that Walker, who’s been running for governor for five years, can’t poll outside the margin of error against Barrett, who’s barely running at this point.  I don’t think that’s a sign that Walker’s work is all for naught - there are lots of organizational type things that can be done in those intervening years.  But the benefits of that sort of work can’t been seen until much, much closer to the election, when the average voter bothers to tune in.

   Troy also makes a good point about NY-23.  Had there been a primary in that race, it’s quite likely that a candidate somewhere between Scozzafava and Hoffman would have emerged.  Scozzafava’s too far left for the GOP in that district but similarly, Hoffman is too far to the right.

   Of course, the one drawback with Troy’s eBay model, to stay with the analogy, is that anyone can bid.  Part of Hoffman’s problem in NY-23 was the perception among voters that his candidacy was largely fueled by outside money and outside interests (both very true when you look at his finance reports and independent spending done on his behalf).  If movement conservatives aren’t smart enough to step back, Marco Rubio is going to be saddled with the same baggage in Florida next year - he’ll get pinned as the darling of out-of-state interests who don’t live in Florida, don’t understand Florida, and don’t care about Florida.

   One final thing of interest is how Walker’s popularity among the conservative base is reflective of a base that now cares less about life experience and one that cares mostly about the promises one will make, regardless of background.  There was a time not so long ago when Neumann’s broad-based background would’ve been something conservatives would trumpet as one of his strongest points.  Conservatives routinely derided liberal candidates as being the children of government, people who never worked an honest day in their life.  Yet now, their own favorite son is a guy who’s barely worked a day in his life outside of elected office.

   I’m not endorsing one model or the other.  I just think it’s a very interesting shift that has occurred in the last decade or so.  Conservatives seem more enthralled now with what a candidate says he’ll do in office than what a candidate has done in life.  More emphasis on words, less on actions.  In that sense, they’ve come to mirror where liberals have been for awhile.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 08, 2009 at 1600 hrs




8. One final thing of interest is how Walker’s popularity among the conservative base is reflective of a base that now cares less about life experience and one that cares mostly about the promises one will make, regardless of background.

   I think you are misunderstanding the reason why many conservatives are supporting Walker.  Most conservatives I know like Neumann and would support him in most elections.  As you say, he has a strong private sector background and a proven track record as a legislator. 

   What Walker has is proven experience as a public executive in a hostile environment.  I, for one, take comfort in the knowledge that if Walker can survive the crucible of Milwaukee liberal politics and remain steadfast in his conservative principles, then he can certainly do the same in Madison.

   While I support Neumann’s strong private sector background, I am uncertain of how he will govern.  It’s been a decade since he was in office.  He was conservative in office at a time when, frankly, it was easy and popular to do so.  His support of the ethanol lobby and a few other things make me nervous that he’s closer to TOMMY than to me. 

   I will agree with you that if I had my druthers, I would prefer that the GOP candidate had the private sector experience of Neumann with the proven record in office of Walker.  If…

   Posted by Owen on December 08, 2009 at 1627 hrs




9. Walker being a professional politician also concerns me.  It’s usually the professional politician that winds up working harder to stay elected than actually getting the job done. Now, if he would say he’s only going to limit himself to a term, that would be a different thing to resolve questions I have.  It’s kinda like Sara Palin says, “Problem w/Professional Politicians:They’re more concerned w/holding a title in perpetuity…”

   Too bad there’s no one out there with the blend of Neumann and Walker.  But let the primarys run their course and let the best man win.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 1645 hrs




10. “It’s usually the professional politician that winds up working harder to stay elected than actually getting the job done.”

    Just like Tommy and just like Doyle.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 1716 hrs




11. Yes, if the Democrats wanted to do something useful with their remaining year in power in Madison, they would pass a term limits law for elected officials in Wisconsin…Doyle claims he is for limits, though admittedly a 40% approval rating is about as term limiting as you can get. This would be a way to go out with some sort of lasting legacy for his eight years as governor.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2009 at 1915 hrs




12. No one is watching the campaigns right now.  It is the holidays.  His campaign is just starting, he won the congressional seat by starting the end of June that year.
        if he drops out it would allow the jerks like Chriostofferson and others like Layden to go negative on Walker right away like thy did with Green. 
      Neumann will be strong, especially if he campaigns against the Milwaukee option, either Barrett or Walker.
      Out state people do not like Milwaukee and the question yet to be answered is whether they will ever vote for anyone from Milwaukee.
      They will decide that in July.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2009 at 1211 hrs