Wood Offered Leadership Position by Democrats

Heh.

Democrats in the state Assembly said they’ll welcome former Republican Jeff Wood with a committee leadership post if they win the majority this fall.

Wood announced last week he no longer wanted to be a Republican and filed to run for re-election as an independent. Wood said Republicans blacklisted him because he was too independent — a charge GOP leaders have denied.

State Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, is heading up Democrats’ campaign efforts. He said his party is inclusive and would welcome anyone.

Pocan denied anyone offered Wood a committee chair position in exchange for dropping out of the GOP.

Uh huh.

1. I still find it hard to believe that the Dems won’t run their own candidate.

   It would make sense to sit on there hands if they did make promises beforehand to Wood, yet if I was a Chippewa County Dem, I’d go ahead and try to organize a write-in nomination in the September primary.

   Why get pushed around by Madison Dems?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 15, 2008 at 1508 hrs




2. Wood said Republicans blacklisted him because he was too independent

   Heh.

   a charge GOP leaders have denied

   Uh huh.

   Posted by scott on July 15, 2008 at 1514 hrs




3. Dems are pulling out all the stops this year - they can see the brass ring of turning Wisconsin into the most taxed state in the country and they are going for it full force.

   Read Owen’s article - I thought it was very interesting - and a chilling thought.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 15, 2008 at 1520 hrs




4. Wood lays down with far-left, Madison liberals and he expects to be relavant in 2009?  This is “short man syndrome” gone awry.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 15, 2008 at 1706 hrs




5. If Pocan is “inclusive and would welcome anyone”...oh I’m sorry, I thought we could bring back statements he issued in 2006?

   My bad.

   Posted by Kevin Binversie on July 16, 2008 at 0647 hrs




6. The greatest irony in all of this is that while Team PocanWood accuse the GOP of not tolerating moderates or dissent, but Wood apparently doesn’t tolerate differing opinions than his own either so he up and leaves the Party.

   That’s his decision - most caucus members, I’m sure, are fine with that.  But as a caucus of one, who will call Wood and ask him to come back when he has one of his temper tantrums and starts driving home because he can’t get an ethanol subsidy in the budget?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 16, 2008 at 0830 hrs




7. I must say, it is interesting to read the speculation of people that don’t live here and don’t get it.

   There will be no write-in efforts. Because there is no point. Wood kicked Dem butt in a Dem wave year. Republicans here like Wood. Indys like Wood. Lots of Dems like Wood. There is no opportunity for triangulation.

   In two years he will leave. I look forward to seeing an anti-ethanol Republican run for the seat. That is an amusing thought, and especially so in light of Owen’s redistricting warning.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 16, 2008 at 1233 hrs




8. So much gets lost here in the partisan blinders.

   - By cutting the deal with Wood, the Dems effectively picked up the seat next session without having to spend a dime to do it.  They’re coming for it in due time, Adam.  Plus, presuming the Dems take control of the Assembly in November, Wood’s seat will be an easier pick-up in 2010.  Should the GOP lose the Assembly in November, there will be a whole slew of GOP retirements in 2010 - not just the old folks, but younger members who have no desire to serve in the minority.  And all the Republican money is likely going to be going towards the Governor’s race as the last best hope to stop Democratic redistricting efforts in 2011.  The Dems are basically putting the seat on layaway for two years.

   - Jim Jones is right.  Wood will probably stick around for two more years and then split.  Wood was already talking about leaving after his second term, and then decided to run again in 2006.  So he gets to make his statement (for whatever that’s worth) and likely rides into the sunset in 2010.

   - Anyone who has any idea of the kinds of personal attacks that were thrown at Musser and Wood in caucus (and behind their backs) this session over the emergency contraception bill has a good idea of which wing of the party is the one making the other miserable these days.  Musser and Wood were practically told in plain language and to their faces that they weren’t wanted around anymore.  Given that, Publius, why would you expect them to stay?

   - All this really shows in the end is how badly managed the AssGOP caucus is.  Huebsch has let things get so far out of hand that some members are basically saying to other members that the caucus would be better off losing the seat than keeping those members around.  Some brilliant strategy for keeping the majority he’s got.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 16, 2008 at 1437 hrs




9. So let me get this straight - Wood and Musser, both of whom will have cut deals with Dems to get their way did it because caucus members were mean to them?  Really?

   Terry Musser has been around a long time - doesn’t seem like he would quit over that.  Maybe it has something to do with lying about being in the green berets and didn’t want to have that fight in an election?  or maybe a job waiting for him in Vet Affairs to boost that retirement salary?

   As for Wood -  he is the mini-king of personality conflict.  He needed more hand-holding than any adult is allowed.  And his re-election is not a lock.  First off - all straight-ticket voters are out of play - so 30-35% of voters are out.  So now he needs to pick up 8o% of those left?  Tall order - but I suppose he could do it.

   Oh - and he’ll have no cash to do it.  That $35,000 he claims to have put into his campaign account…we’ll see about that one.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 16, 2008 at 1638 hrs




10. I agree that each had personal motivations for taking a deal beyond caucus dynamics.  But at the same time, many of their colleagues made it pretty clear that they could care less whether those guys stayed or left - the same ones that would rather be part of a 41-man, whine-and-bitch conservative minority than a majority that could actually accomplish something.  It’s pretty easy to leave a caucus where you’re not wanted.

    Wineke and Musser are drinking buddies.  You think Joe and the ADCC were really going to put Musser in the crosshairs with a dozen targets that are easier to hit?  I think Musser’s smart to leave, and have no doubt that he’ll resurface somewhere at DVA - but again, it’s the carping and bitching in caucus that make these retirement gigs all the more appealing.

    And while we’re at it, shall we place bets on when that DOR offer was first floated to Roessler?

    In the end, the Assembly Republicans are headed clear into the minority.  And the sad part is that their majority will largely have been pissed away by themselves and not earned by the Democrats.  Lazy candidates, poor political strategizing with the gay marriage amendment, the ongoing alienation of members who don’t/won’t march to the orders of talk radio.  Not that the Democrats aren’t working, but we’re still largely talking about a team whose entire agenda is “we’re not those crazy, do-nothing Assembly Republicans.”  And that’s probably going to be good enough for six seats this fall.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 16, 2008 at 1852 hrs




11. I’m not advocating that the GOP slip into the minority and tote and fetch for talk radio, however, bear in mind that leadership couldn’t decide on a fundamental agenda - whether it was liberal, moderate, or conservative.

    Every member of that caucus was given winks and nods and told that the “agrieving” party would be handled.

    And now the ship is out to sea, and members who were dependent on leadership are wondering where their next meal is coming from while those who charged forward and carved their own agenda look safe.

    I don’t know that anyone could have controlled that caucus; for years, the Musser’s and Wood’s were abided and it all came to a head this last session when they became insatiable and faced opposition behind closed doors.  Look at the budget as a prime example.  Now we see the true MusserWood and when they were confronted, they quit.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 16, 2008 at 2100 hrs




12. Recess,

    You keep referring to this supposed newly-created bad blood in the caucus like it is something new.  Your 41 scenario has always been there and not surprisingly, they are so predictable in their behavior that neither Wood nor Musser would actually let this bother them.  What would have caused a problem is leadership ruling by the 41, which they clearly did not - especially with the EC bill.

    The caucus strife was maybe a 5% player in these decisions as they were both very self-serving in nature.  And do I think ADCC would have taken out Musser - abso-f*cking-lutely.  To get the majority, I think they would have without reserve - and Musser knew it.

    Roessler’s offer?  Who knows with that crazy lady.  It might have been Doyle trying to make up for Breske - it may have happened months ago.

    And I wouldn’t count out the Assembly GOP yet.  It is amazing how hard people will work when their jobs are on the line.  But you are right, the AssDems have no message at all - not on taxes, not on health care, not any solutions.  But they do have arrogance and overconfidence working for them - we’ll see how well that plays out…

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 16, 2008 at 2145 hrs