Ron Johnson to Enter Wisconsin Senate Race
From WisPolitics.
GOP sources tell WisPolitics that Oshkosh businessman Ron Johnson has decided to get into the U.S. Senate race and has been talking with operatives as he seeks to build a campaign structure.
Johnson’s candidacy has been widely expected following Tommy Thompson’s decision to forgo a run as a Republican Senate candidate, as WisPolitics.com reported last week.
Asked for comment, Johnson responded in an e-mail, “I will only say that there will be an important announcement regarding my intentions within the next two weeks.”
I don’t know that much about Ron Johnson, but I did like what I heard on Charlie’s show this morning. Wait and see.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1151 hrs
can we please get a candidate like Terry McCormick to run for the senate?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1204 hrs
omg. Why on earth would we want goofy Terri McCormick to run? Yikes. Might as well have Robert Gerald Lorge make a go at it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1209 hrs
I think what this state really needs are brilliant conservative scholars such as Sykes, Belling, or Robinson running for either governor or senator. Either one of these three gentlemen would surely coast to an easy victory.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1230 hrs
Pat = troll
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1232 hrs
Smeety, you don’t think that either of those three could win?
I do. I wish one of them would run.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1234 hrs
Pat, my apologies. I apparently inaccurately read sarcasm in your comment. I have no opinion on any of the three…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1238 hrs
Toss another log on the fire.
While we roast all the Repub retreads - Feingold slides his way to ANOTHER 6 years of being nobody’s senator but Madison’s.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1239 hrs
Any one of them would get me vote in a heart beat
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1240 hrs
Why would i want Terri McCormick? because of her stance on the issues….
http://terrimccormickforcongress.com/2010/01/issues/Health Care: its a state issue not a federal one.
Tax Reform: going to a flat tax
Civil Liberties: she is a constitutionalist. She understands that
the constitution is supposed to limit government, not give it the ability to take our rights such as happened in the new health care bill.Money Policy: she is a free market person.
Energy: I don’t like her stance here. calling for “incentives” for alternate energy. Yet in the next paragraph says she is for less government intervention which is contradictory.
Education: In addition to supporting school choice, public charter schools, and voucher programs, Terri has always been a supporter of homeschooling
Jobs: reduce gov’t jobs increase private sector jobs.
Limited Government:Terri McCormick believes in the principles of limited government, fiscal restraint, checks and balances, free market competition, constitutional freedoms and rule of law.
Trade: believes in open market competition. job of the United States government to negotiate fair market trade policies
military: believes in a strong military but we are not the policeman of the world.
commitment to life: seems to be anti-abortion
immigration: first, securing the borders…..
gun control: Terri supports the Second Amendment…
I don’t like the “incentives” for alternate energy and I don’t care about abortion personally. But I LOVE her stance on smaller government almost across the board.Please give us some candidates that want a smaller government. I’m tired of having to choose between a two candidates that want bigger governments just in different directions(Democrat and Rebulicans).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1252 hrs
McCormick is creepy…just take a look at her goofy YouTube pieces and you may change your mind.
In my opinion, the only person who would stand a reasonable chance of beating Feingold is Paul Ryan. This current field of angry white men will just be another footnote in campaign history.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1308 hrs
Mr Pants is probably right. While this particular guy may be an upgrade over the collection of scrubs we currently have running, I don’t know how any of them is going to beat Feingold. At the rate we are going, we’ll have 37 nobodies and one Democrat with a poor to middling beer named after him vying for the chance to be dismantled in November.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1315 hrs
Geez, do any of you really want someone other than Feingold? Scrubs? Rummys? Angry White Men? For crying out loud, is there anyone running who is actually “worthy” of your backing? At this rate anyone seeking the Conservative nomination must also have Jesus’ halo to get your approval.
It’s no wonder that frikkin Liberal has kept the seat.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1348 hrs
is there anyone running who is actually “worthy” of your backing?
Nope.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1357 hrs
So this is the guy that Vicky McKenna has been ranting about? Never heard of him, and therefore he faces the same problems Westlake and Wahl face. He had better be willing to sink MILLIONS into this race, because right now, despite the poll numbers, this race is Feingold’s to lose.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1423 hrs
Did anyone hear of Feingold before he became Senator?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1432 hrs
I was nine when he was first elected. So of course I knew nothing of him. My point is that politics is a popularity contest, more than ever, and you cant win if nobody knows your name.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1440 hrs
I disagree….I don’t think anyone knew who Feingold before he was elected. In fact I don’t think many knew who Bill Clinton was before he was elected.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1502 hrs
Feingold was a Wisconsin State Senator for 10 years before becoming a United States Senator; so yes, people knew of him.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1610 hrs
Few had ever heard of him. How many State senators can you name without looking online? How many can the average person name? I would posit that most people can barely name their own, much less any others. As soon as the campaign gets rolling, he’ll be quite well known.
If he appeals to the conservative base of the GOP and he runs as a fiscal conservative on a platform of economic growth, he’ll smoke Feingold easily. Get out early and paint Russ as the party line far left hack that he is… then advertise yourself as the opposite. A sure win.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1634 hrs
Well, he represented 150,000 people for 10 years and had legislative experience before entering the US Senate race, and beat a couple of rich guys in the Dem primary. So, apparently, he knows how to win races against millionaires.
What we have now are two rich white guys, a guy who claims to be a Republican, and a guy who only wears orange shirts. Not a very stellar group, in my opinion.
Wisconsin can not be won with just the “conservative base”. You need the independents and fiscally conservative Democrats, and Feingold appeals to both.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending nor supporting the guy…I’d love to see him go. But Feingold has the name recognition, money, and independent/mavericky appeal that a lot of Wisconsin voters like. Again, my original post was that only someone of the caliber of Paul Ryan could beat Feingold, and I’m sticking to that.
Just because you can yell really loud at a Tea Party rally, have wealthy parents who gave you a ton of land…or beer, or can don a blaze orange shirt, that doesn’t make you a worthy candidate for someone like Feingold. If the GOP doesn’t get their poop together on this Senate race, Feingold will have the last smoke.
And for the record, I can name all 33 State Senators without looking it up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1652 hrs
Wow, another loaded Republican who wants to buy a Senate seat. Dave Westlake, I’m telling you now: burn your three stupid orange shirts, go watch the old Feingold commercials on YouTube, and figure out how to be cool goofy instead of weird goofy. Rich guys hate to lose and they are going to throw a s!@#load of their own money at each other in the next four months.
But on the whole, I’m with Mr. Pants here. Some rich guy in a suit is not going to beat Feingold, who has managed to develop a quirky cult of personality among Wisconsin voters. Never mind that Feingold’s maverick style is most often employed when his vote has no impact on the end result. He gets to be the wonky rebel without ever pissing off his party leaders. Win-win. Feingold coasts to another six years.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 29, 2010 at 1713 hrs
RS: If these guys are trying to “buy” a senate seat, what did Herb Kohl do? Do you hold wealthy (much wealthier, actually) democrats to the same standard?
Politics is about money, whether it is your own, or that of contributors. We have decided in this country that character matters less than funding… Case in point, BHO, who despite cries of transparency and ethics in government has accepted millions in contributions from Goldman Sachs, hired lobbyists to work in his administration, appointed a tax cheat to oversee the tax code, and lied repeatedly about legislation that he has hurried through after promising that all bills would be posted online before he signed them.
I don’t care if Terry Wahl or Ron Johnson are millionaires. It is the content of their character that matters. If either of them espouses and lives by a truly conservative creed, they have my vote.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1808 hrs
At this point I’m going all-in on Ron Johnson. He’s all I’ve got. Decent screen presence. Conservative. Will spend money. No tax problems.
People underestimate the anger at Feingold at the moment from those listening sessions. He could have been a maverick and brokered some bipartisan bill. But he didn’t.
His schtick won’t keep working for 20-years. People eventually get fatigued with politicians, no matter how successful they may have been in the past. Guys like Feingold and Obey jump the shark in this election just as people like Bob Kastenmaier and Gaylord Nelson did in the past.
Birch Bayh is a good study. He went down to “Dan Quayle” as he tried for a fourth term in 1980. Ron Johnson can do this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1828 hrs
You can’t seriously compare Johnson or Wall to Herb Kohl. I mean come on, Kohl is a Wisconsin institution who has his name plastered on department stores all across the state for decades.
He had money AND huge name recognition before he even set foot into the political arena…something Wall and Johnson simply do not have.
It’s going to take more than just conservative, Tea Party anger to take out Feingold, and as long as the current GOP candidates keep bangin’ that single note drum, Feingold stays right where he is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1850 hrs
PP, I’m optimistic on this. Johnson has six-months to get his name out and the money to do it. This is a new world where even the guy up in Hayward has the internet.
As long as he has the money to get his name out and has the background and charisma to do this, he can. I think Johnson is in a different class than Wall or Westlake.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 1905 hrs
Steve - I hope so.
But all four of these guys have to stop playing the “I’m more of a Reagan Republican than you are” game. It’s gets old and only appeals to the base. To beat Feingold, they need to do more.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 2038 hrs
My reference was merely to RS’s suggestion that these “rich white republicans” are trying to buy a senate seat. If it is the case that they are trying to buy a senate seat, is it not also true that Herb Kohl also bought his seat? Simple question, and a logical comparison.
I am holding out hope that Johnson will hit the ground hard and make a big splash, because that is what it is going to take. I agree with you Mr. PP this Reaganism is not going to be enough, in fact, for many Conservatives (especially from my generation) Ronald Reagan is representative of the big spending Republican Old-guard, that destroyed the party, and helped get this country 13 Trillion Dollars in debt. It is high time that a candidate just simply represented Conservatism, rather than trying to compare themselves to a President who died 6 years ago, and hadn’t been in office for 16 years prior. Reagan has been out of politics for 22 years, the economic issues facing this country today have a far more grim prognosis, for God’s sake, our national debt will exceed GDP in TWO YEARS… We need candidates who will support DRASTIC cutbacks, and a MAJOR reform of the tax code.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 30, 2010 at 0812 hrs
I’m not counting Ron Johnson out yet…let’s hear what he has to say and how he resonates with voters. I agree, that there is a h u g e Feingold backlash.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 30, 2010 at 0918 hrs
Rich guys buy seats all the time. But there’s a stereotype that comes with being a wealthy conservative that doesn’t come with being a wealthy liberal - namely that the wealthy conservative has already gotten his in life and now wants to promote policies that prevent him from having to help anyone else get theirs. We can all acknowledge that wealthy liberals, on the other hand, often choose to argue against their own financial interest. Fair? Probably not. Reality? Yup.
So no, none of these guys is like Kohl, who as Mr. PP noted, had his name on grocery and department stores for ages and also owned the Milwaukee Bucks.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 30, 2010 at 1136 hrs
Well Johnson and even McCormick have some good properties, but can they really stand a chance against a well-oiled machine that Russ Feingold has? Truly each could win the hearts of Republicans but not the necessary Independent or Democrat votes needed to win the Senate seat in Wisconsin.
I think this post from the Jiblog says it all:
“But even if he is a left of center Republican, he still might be the only guy not named Thompson who has a chance in hell of putting up a challenge to Feingold. So my question is this: Would you rather six more years of Feingold because Leinenkugel isn’t a died in the wool conservative, or would you rather accept his flaws for a less radically liberal Senator from Wisconsin?”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 30, 2010 at 1325 hrs
Republicans need to promote actual conservatives instead of the “just to the right of center” type. I thought that was obvious from the past elections. Time and time again, Republicans put up guys that are close to the center; Democrats run as fiscal conservatives and claim to cut taxes. Instead, people see the candidates as having similar views and vote for the Democrat, especially when there is little excitement about the candidate from the Republican community.
“We can all acknowledge that wealthy liberals, on the other hand, often choose to argue against their own financial interest. Fair? Probably not. Reality? Yup.”
Just because Feingold has accumulated no wealth from his entire time as senator, despite making over $150,000 a year (scary to think he’s managing the country’s money), does not mean Democrats “argue against their own financial interest”. Statistically Republicans tend to be considerably more charitable than Democrats, so I’m not sure where you’re getting this “Republicans don’t want to see others get rich” idea. Republicans support lower taxation and regulation on business. It makes them richer. Rich people get richer when the poor get richer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 21, 2010 at 1620 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 100
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 02:44 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).