What’s He Running For: Mahlon Mitchell

Mahlon Mitchell, President of the Professional Firefighters of Wisconsin and Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor in the 2012 recall, hit the ground running full tilt as a speaker at the recent Democratic Party of Wisconsin State Convention.

Running through the gamut of the sins of the Walker administration and continually repeating labor chants of the recall and 2011 demonstrations, Mr. Mitchell is clearly running for state office…which one is unclear but when I put that question to a knowledgeable friend sitting with me at the convention he said either senator or governor. When Mr. Mitchell finished, I leaned over and asked Zach what Mr. Mitchell was running for, he quietly laughed and showed me his notebook where he had clearly written during the speech, “What is he running for?”.

Well Mr. Mitchell is clearly positioning himself for a run at a statewide election…but he wisely didn’t say which one…but I don’t think that with the popularity he’s garnered over the past two years, that he will be quite satisfied with lieutenant governor this time.

12 comments to What’s He Running For: Mahlon Mitchell

  • He supports removing the residency requirement for Milwaukee’s public employees. I can’t image that will play very well for him in Milwaukee.

       0 likes

    • forgotmyscreenname

      It plays very well for the public employees who want freedom. It doesn’t play well with Mayor Barrett.

         0 likes

      • PJ

        “It plays very well for the public employees who want freedom.” Perhaps it does, FMSN. Why on earth would we put restrictions upon public service? After all, it is the public interest that they are serving is it not? Why, it would be just as proper for a public servant employed in Milwaukee to commute from his/her residence in beautiful downtown Husher because the interests of beautiful downtown Husher and the interests of Milwaukee are so very similar. Why, it doesn’t really make sense to restrict a public servant employed in Milwaukee, Wisconsin from living in Oak Park, Illinois. I mean, it isn’t as if there’s a republican principle involved or anything. And gosh, given we’re up to our necks in a “globalized economy” and pivotal advances in world travel are sure to be coming any day now – why would we limit public service at all? Why wouldn’t someone who lives in Milan or Montecarlo or Damascus be restricted from public service in Milwaukee providing the commute were feasible? I mean, really, why should an ambitious guy like Ron Johnson, for instance, be restricted from representing the people of Michigan? And why should he have to uproot from his home in Wisconsin to do so? It makes as much sense for you or me to elect a senator, a public servant, who will represent the people of Louisiana. You know, FMSN, I think you’re onto something there. Yes, you’ve convinced me. “Freedom” makes perfect sense. We should have much more of it. No restrictions on freedom. It isn’t like “limited” is a republican principle or anything.

           0 likes

      • FMSN, if those public employees you’re referencing valued “freedom” so much, why did they CHOOSE to obtain employment with the City of Milwaukee, knowing full well that there was a residency requirement?

           1 likes

        • forgotmyscreenname

          PJ and Zach, I didn’t mean to open a can of worms on the residency issue. My point to Dave was that I don’t possibly see how Mitchell’s position could hurt him. Public employees wanting more options would like it and no one else (other than Barrett) would care much one way or the other.

          But to answer your question Zach, there are many reasons, including changing life circumstances. What if one dedicated teacher marries a public employee from a different municipality with a residency requirement? You are ok with forcing one to quit? Or maybe someone just wants to buy a house they like just on the other side of Barrett’s Berlin Wall? Kind of limiting yourself on the pool of quality employees there and trapping the rest.

          Interesting you make the argument that they chose to work for the city. Do you hold that view for employees who chose to work for private employers like WalMart? You would be the first one bellyaching about how they are “oppressed.” This must be the only time you aren’t in favor of giving public employees more of what they want. And it doesn’t cost a dime!

             0 likes

  • Ed Heinzelman

    Florida doesn’t require their US Representatives to actually live in the district…they aren’t even required to pretend they live in the district.

       0 likes

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Blogging Blue’s “14 in ’14”

Goal Thermometer

Follow us on Twitter