Earlier today former Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager announced her endorsement of the Congressional campaign of Kelda Roys in the second Congressional district, citing Pocan’s sexist remarks about Roys as one of the reasons for her endorsement.
“Perhaps the most important lesson we can learn from recent elections in our state is that voters are unwilling to settle for ‘politics as usual’,” said Lautenschlager. “Kelda’s work as an attorney, advocate, and legislator show she has the strength of character and commitment to ideals to be anything but ‘politics as usual.’
The former Attorney General’s choice to endorse was influenced by Mark Pocan’s recent comments in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, in which he dismissed Roys’ record and experience, saying “But at this point, you have to crawl before you walk and walk before you run.”
“Tragically, we live in a political climate where it is commonplace for men to belittle the accomplishments of women who run for office. Nonetheless, I was dumbfounded by the sexist remarks of Representative Pocan about his opponent, Representative Roys. Kelda Roys is a remarkably talented and intelligent woman who, as an attorney, legislative leader, and former head of a statewide advocacy group, has already made her mark on society. Citizens of the Second Congressional District would be well-served by all she brings to the table.”
There’s no denying Peg Lautenschlager is a solid progressive, and perhaps if her endorsement came two months before the August 14 primary instead of two weeks before the primary, it would have had more of an impact, but at this point it seems like too little, too late.
Wow. A ‘solid progressive.’ Since you’ve been gleefully heaping scorn on Kelda Roys from Day One, Zach, does this mean you’ll now be extending it to the former AG as well?
You say “gleefully heaping scorn,” I say writing about what I see as hypocrisy.
As for Lautenschlager’s endorsement of Roys’ campaign, I’m not surprised by the endorsement, nor do I have any criticisms of it. Peg’s got her reasons for endorsing Kelda’s campaign, and those reasons certainly don’t merit an attack.
C’mon…Tell me you aren’t enjoying some of these commercials between these two??…It’s always good sport watching liberals eating their own…Kind of like a political ThunderDome.. two candidates enter, one candidate leaves…
I tend not to enjoy attack ads no matter who’s running them and who the target is. I understand they have a place in political campaigns, but my thoughts on this whole issue are part of a larger problem I have with campaigns being all about who can raise the most money to essentially buy the election, regardless of political party.
I guess I’m missing the sexism in the quoted statement.
I’ve been called a sexist for no other reason than I dared criticize women running for office or holding office (and not because of their gender), so apparently sexism is in the eye of the beholder.
I hope Peg is not endorsing Kelda just because she is a woman. I hear this from other women sometimes, that we should vote for a woman because we need more women in office. Yes, we need more women in office. But voting on the basis of gender is sexist in my book.
As I’ve written before, voting for anyone simply because of gender, race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc., etc. is simply the wrong way to go about things.
I am a little confused. Where is the sexist remark? The statement that Ms. Roys has only crawled, and thus ought to be walking instead of running, i.e. she does not have sufficient legislative experience to merit election to Federal office?
If women have less opportunity to serve, and thus gain such experience, I cannot see how this applies to Ms. Roys, who was elected and does serve. She has not served as long as Mr. Pocan, and thus has less experience. This has to be a function of age as well as ambition and electability.
Ms. Lautenschlager gets to endorse whom she will, but this reasoning seems like a cover for her to endorse a female candidate on the grounds that she is a female candidate, and not much else.
Years ago, that meant something. I am not sure it still carries that primary a weight. Was there something else that Mr. Pocan said or wrote that I am missing here? Bloggers, reply…
MBB
Michael, Pocan’s comment was most certainly a dig on Roys’ relative lack of experience (at least in comparison to his), but apparently some people believe you’re a sexist if you dare to criticize a woman who hold office or is running for office, regardless of whether the attack was based on gender or not.
This is one of a handful of the absolute safest Dem districts in Congress.
I’ll vote for TB in November but, she was terrible. She and the other Dems like her could have forced Obama to include the public option. Instead, she wimped out at and let Bart Stupak (D-MI) partner with a few wingnuts and roll back choice (Hyde Amendment) with an Executive Order from the POTUS.
As soon as BO gets re-elected, he’s going right back to saving the 1%. He’s going to to want cut Social Security, cut Medicare, cut Medicaid. He’ll defend the FREE trade agreements he already signed for Korea, Panama, and Columbia. He’ll make sure DOJ won’t prosecute the white collar thugs on Wall Street. He won’t make the IRS and DOJ go after the TRILLIONS in offshore banks. He’ll continue socializing risk onto the taxpayers…… The only thing stopping him and a lot of the other sell-out Dems, Hoyer, Pelosi…. will be all-day-tough Dems in heavy D+ districts who are scared $%^&^&** of getting “primaryed.”
I’m one of Kelda’s constituents and I liked her, or at least I did until she started in with the negative commercials. I was never convinced that two years in the assembly qualified her for Congress. Questioning her lack of experience is fair game as far as I’m concerned. She barely has a track record to run on.
Was this endorsement made in person, and if so, did Kelda try to make out with Peg in order to pander for the LGBT vote?
No word on that…Rick Coelho from Kelda’s campaign doesn’t return my calls anymore.