For Whom Is Help On The Way?

While Tom Barrett was easily dispatching Scott Walker in the debate last Friday, correctly pointing out: In the 2008 financial meltdown and the ensuing job crisis, Walker shut down Milwaukee County\'s economic development agency.

Personally I think that the key moment of the debate was this:

“Scott, Governor Doyle is not running,” Barrett told Walker Friday night. “There are two of us on this stage right now. I’m the only one who ever ran against Governor Doyle. I ran against him eight years ago, and I ran against him because I thought I could do a better job. You started running against him four years ago, but you dropped out. You dropped out because the party bosses told you to drop out.”

That line put a sour look on Walkers face and one he was unable to defend himself.

Another highlight of mine that was missed by most of the media was Scott Walker saying that if he is Governor, not a single felon will get out of prison a day early. This sounds great, unless you do a little research into the Walker record.

* His Lieutenant Governor, Rebecca Kleefisch, is the handpicked candidate of convicted felon \"Scooter Jensen\".

* Then there is the case of Darlene Wink, who was campaigning for her boss on the taxpayers dime.

* William E. Gardner, who illegally gave almost $44000 to Walker.

* Tim Russell, a former Walker Deputy Chief of Staff who is now the county housing administrator.

* There is also rumor of a secret John Doe investigation by county prosecutors.

Starting to see a pattern here? How can someone who pretends to be tough on crime be so lackadaisical about it in his own campaign? Some people think Barrett was too tough on Walker, I think he let Walker off easy.

Share:

Related Articles

20 thoughts on “For Whom Is Help On The Way?

  1. Barrett is just Doyle all over again, anti business, anti family and 100% far left liberal. His is a behind by double digits because Wisconsin is tired of the liberals running this state as if the southeastern corner of the state is all that matters.

    1. When right-wing liars make dishonest characterizations of others, there’s really no reason for any sensible person to listen to those lies.

  2. I have only heard those talking points about 10,000 times nota, thanks for bringing nothing to the discussion.

    1. That’s the most unintentionally funny post I’ve read in some time. Thanks for the laugh on a tough Tuesday.

      Speaking of kettle’s calling pots black…

      You dropped out because the party bosses told you to drop out.”

      If the accusation here is that the party is calling the shots with hand-picked candidates, then Barrett needs to look at his own. This year, it’s the Dems doing just that. They’ve locked up candidates & kept the chosen ones without serious primary challengers.

      1. Either the big-shot Dems had to beg Barrett to run for Gov because he didn’t want to or the big-shot Dems tried to keep other candidates out of the race.
        These right-wing talking points can’t go both ways.

        1. First the logic – the two are not mutually exclusive. Though I’ve not made the argument that Barrett had to be dragged in, you can’t tell me you didn’t notice & wonder why he was as slow as he was to formally announce. That could be a good thing or it could be a bad thing – you could spin it either way. But if the Dems thought Barrett was the best candidate they had (which apparently they did) then they could both convince/push him into running, and still pressure anyone considering challenging him to stay out.

          Second, this is not a right wing talking point at all – Zach, xoff and others have taken issue with the “appointing” of candidates on this very blog. Is it the biggest issue in the world? Of course not. It’s really not even a blip on the radar. The Republicans have done it in the past and probably will do it again. But the point is, this time around, it’s just plain silly for Barrett to try to make a point on it when right when the race for the Republican nominee was about as hotly contested of a gubernatorial primary as we’ve seen in some time.

          1. If Walker wants to keep pushing the Barrett=Doyle line, Barrett is completely right to point out the difference, specifically that he went all the way through the primary against Doyle in 2002, while Walker dropped out before the two had a chance to go head-to-head in 2006. The Barrett=Doyle meme is a product of Walker lacking substance to run on, both his horrible track record as County Exec and the absence of any plan as Gov besides cutting millions in taxes without telling us what services are being cut.

            Barrett got into the race nearly a year from election day, which doesn’t seem late to me. I don’t blame him for not wanting to spend the summer of 2009 enduring baseless attacks from Priebus and the RPW. Which brings me to my point about “appointing” candidates. I wasn’t all that bothered by it until I had to endure RPW press releases about Dave Obey hand-picking his successor while Priebus and Jefferson also implored Neumann to get out of the Gov race.

            I probably missed a point I wanted to respond to somewhere in there.

            1. Walker’s claim is no different than Obama’s claim that McCain = Bush’s 3rd term. No one has said that Walker is particulary creative. But it has worked before.

              1. And Al Gore was going to be Bill Clinton’s 3rd term and Bush Sr. was supposed to be Reagan’s 3rd term. It’s nothing new.

                The difference is we all knew where McCain differed from Bush. I would like to hear how Barrett differs from Doyle.

            2. If Walker wants to keep pushing the Barrett=Doyle line, Barrett is completely right to point out the difference, specifically that he went all the way through the primary against Doyle in 2002, while Walker dropped out before the two had a chance to go head-to-head in 2006.

              I’ve never once made a statement anything resembling praise with regard to Walker’s campaign. They’ve been awful – really come across as amateurs pretty much the whole way. While I’m probably about the biggest Doyle basher there is, I don’t find the Barrett = Doyle stuff at all compelling. I think Barrett is a decent human being and Doyle is…not.

              As far as not getting in earlier & subjecting himself to the garbage – I’m certainly sympathetic to that. I have pretty much no respect for RPW or DPW – the political environment in this state is possibly even more caustic than in the nation as a whole & both sides engage in such politics of personal destruction that the average person can’t stand to watch TV this time of year. I don’t listen to a word Priebus says. Pretty much the only exposure I have to Tate is when his press releases are posted here. Which always makes me sad to see because in general, I think more of most of the folks here than to buy into what Tate is slinging.

  3. Bringing up the boogeyman of Scott Jensen… you guys are getting really desperate. I’ll await the post where Walker wants babies and seniors to starve.

  4. the point is, you cant claim to be tough on crime when one of your main advisers is a convicted felon. Its not a bogeyman its a fact!

    1. But the point you state regarding Jensen makes no sense. You say Walker can’t be tough on crime because his Lt. Gov, whom Walker has no choice over, was supposedly hand-picked by Jensen (and er, not the voters in the primary apparently). That’s quite a leap to make.

      And while you are engaging in “fact,” you probably shouldn’t point out that his case is still working its way through the court system under appeal.

  5. No i am saying that he is an advisor to the campaign, how can you have an advisor to the campaign be a felon and then be tough on crime. It would like having Ruths Chris Steakhouse in charge of his brown bag lunches…..o wait….

    Scooter is a convicted felon that is a fact.

Comments are closed.