Mike Tate: voters don’t care if Scott Walker was at center of criminal scheme

16 thoughts on “Mike Tate: voters don’t care if Scott Walker was at center of criminal scheme”

1. You knowing people who are outraged isn’t really any more scientific than last weekend’s canvassing. What is really striking is the lack of popular anger and virtually zero calls for his resignation. Perhaps people are embarassed for voting him in blindly when 2 minutes study of the Journal Sentinel on his county exec record would have told them all they needed to know about the sort of Governor he would become. Or maybe too many are rubes still swallowing whole the myth of trickle-down. Wisconsin had higher standards once upon a time but after years of Walker, maybe we’ve just fallen too low to pick ourselves up as a people.

   1. EmmaR, you’re absolutely right that my method was no more scientific than Mike Tate’s, but as the Chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin he’s supposed to be winning elections, and thus far he hasn’t done a great job of that.

   2. Not trying to be a smart-ass here EmmaR, but who you gonna call to do something, ghost busters? Perhaps complain to JB VanHollen or your Republican state or national “representative,” if you are a in the 49% minority of a “purple political state district?”

      I just responded to an invite, the first public announcement of a scheduled stop for the D candidate running for my district assembly seat. They asked for a specific suggested donation to attend. I asked, with no response yet, if there was a Q&A portion to the program, i.e. answers to my questions which would help determine if I would actually support the candidate, BEFORE handing over money.

      Zero publicity from this candidate, so far, other than a generic web page and a few generic, “here we are at a parade shaking hands,” photo ops, smiling facebook entries. No specifics on the issues other than statements such as, “we care about the environment.” What, just like Cathy Stepp and Joel Kleefisch do?

      This is the 72 county strategy for the State “D’s”?

      (Sorry, bit of a rant against the, official D program, riffing off your comment)

      1. Not really sure why you replied to me rather than posting your own comment – I was focused on the lack of popular outrage for Walker. As for your DPW critique, my guess is that no candidate anywhere will precisely mirror your own opinions and you will remain perpetually disappointed.

         1. I was intrigued a bit by who you might include in your definition of rubes. Rubes in my definition would include leadership in both wings of the money party (D’s and R’s) still pushing trickle-down on all of the rest of us and rubes to me are not fools as much as they are the deliberate and active liars, deceivers on the topic of capitalism, to cut themselves a small piece of the action, as long as they are allowed to perpetuate the myth.

            My occasional disappointment is not about any precise mirroring, it is about not seeing even one fragment of reflection of any of my opinions in any fashion from too many people supposedly now, or desiring to soon be, representing the left side of the political scale.

2. Zach, thanks.

   I call bs on Mr. Tate. Where were these 3,000 doors? Did anyone open their door? I want film of these volunteers. Who are they? Where and when did they “knock on these doors?”

   So suddenly Ms. Burke’s running on a job’s platform. First I’ve heard of it. Is she going to mention that real unemployment is a lot larger than the government’s numbers?

   Is it possible for DPW to walk and chew gum at the same time? Is it possible for DPW to tailor messages for different groups within the Democratic party? Has DPW heard of direct mail? When the Wisconsin media is begging for bright, innovative responses from Ms. Burke and other Democratic leaders on an issue that’s selling newspapers and attracting eyeballs, is it possible for DPW to fail any worse?

   Reporters work under deadlines. You can criticize Scott Walker/WIGOP all you want, but they understand that. He always tried to feed the media beast and that (along with the oligarch’s money) is why the media like him. He also actually campaigned, you know, mixed with real people/aka posed for photo ops. Print and electronic media need photos and copy to do their job. WIGOP understands that. DPW does not.

   Any talk of “jobs” is bringing up the rear. Dems and Republicans want to hear about FAMILY SUPPORTING JOBS. They want their kids to be able to afford to go to college and then be able to move out of the house and then to buy their own house. None of those happen at $15.00/hour, which afaik is $5 bucks north of what DPW currently supports.

   Since Ms. Burke is already running as a Republican moderate, it’s even easier for her to attack Walker from the right. A lot of wingnuts hate Karl Rove. It’s ok for Mr. Tate and Ms. Burke to hammer emphasize that email Walker sent to Rove. It’s ok for Mr. Tate and Ms. Burke to hammer emphasize that a lot of those groups only had ONE donor. It’s ok for Mr. Tate and Ms. Burke to explain what astroturf is, that’s one oligarch getting a tax deduction for contributing money to a group whose real purpose is to extract favors from government to make him/her more wealthy. Is that tougher to communicate than “jobs?” Why yes, yes it is. But that’s why Mr. Tate makes a good salary.

   Completely agree that Ms. Burke cannot afford to look “partisan,” on this. She has to be statesman like, on this we all agree. Unfortunately, her silence and Mr. Tate’s only helps Eric O’Keefe, the Koch brothers, the WALL STREET JOURNAL editorial page, Judge Randa, Judge Peterson, and the oligarch’s attorneys.

   At the same time, the silence of Ms. Burke and Mr. Tate really hurts Judge Easterbrook, Judge Nettesheim, Francis Schmitz, John Chisholm, the investigators, and all the other folks who’ve done all the early, heavy lifting. A lot of those people are getting sued by oligarchs in FEDERAL court, but Ms. Burke and Mr. Tate don’t want to talk about it. That’s why both of them “throwing water” on this story is so dangerous and so irresponsible.

   This is an unprintable NATIONAL story and Mr. Tate and Ms. Burke are both proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are both in way over their heads. Tate is young and Ms. Burke is smart. Perhaps with some more tough love from Zach and others they can improve. I haven’t given up hope, but per Steve Carlson months ago, Ms. Burke has to get out in groups of real people, real voters.

   My greatest fear is that the poll numbers that Mr. Tate and Ms. Burke are using are supplied by companies who are committed to the deep pockets of Senator Clinton, or whatever other corporate outsourcing candidate the Dems nominate. Everyone already knows that both right and left want lower state taxes. Right and left both want tax revenue from marijuana. If Mr. Tate or Ms. Burke were looking at real poll numbers, they would be out front on legalizing marijuana. It would jump start urban agriculture in Milwaukee. It would electrify turnout in November. It would allow Wisconsin to invest MORE in education. CEO’s argue to shareholders that they get better performance with better pay. Teachers and Ms. Burke should make the identical argument.

   As long as Ms. Burke and Mr. Tate don’t press Mr. Abele to immediately release the rest of the emails, (delete confidential information), the appearance is that there was serious complicity with Gov. Walker when he was County Exec by high ranking Dems.

   /rant

3. I’d like to see Mr. Tate and Ms. Burke focus group some law and order talking points about WIGOP and the oligarchs ATTACKING law enforcement with attorneys from OUTSIDE of Wisconsin.

   That’s what O’Keefe and the Koch brothers are doing in FEDERAL court. They’re billionaires attacking prosecutors, investigators and the police officers who carried out warrants signed by a judge.

   “Billionaire” is a nice word for Ms. Burke. She’s a millionaire. I’d encourage the campaign to consider making “liberal” use of the word “billionaire,” in explaining to voters what the John Doe is all about.

   WIGOP has a lock on the law enforcement unions and the perception that they are the party for “Law and Order.” The “billionaire’ Koch’s, Eric O’Keefe, and the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page (Rupert Murdoch) have handed them the perfect centrist/moderate issue. So why not take it?

4. I don’t think Tate really believes what he said, he’s playing it smart. Unless this investigation goes forward and yields criminal charges against Walker, it could actually backfire on the Dems, in my view. Sans indictment it will appear to the average voter who doesn’t spend the time we do on such things that Walker is being persecuted. And given that the appeals in this case will almost certainly extend well beyond the election, we aren’t going to see Walker go down before November. We’re going to have to defeat him ourselves, without the help of John Doe.

   1. The investigation was very successfully stalled until Eric O’Keefe and the Koch brothers re-started it with the help of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.

      That was a clear sign to me that the Koch brothers and the rest of the oligarchs have every confidence that Ms. Burke will at a minimum not roll back any of the gains Gov. Walker has made against unions.

5. I think Tate downplaying John Doe doesn’t equal “people don’t care.” They’re just making sure not to pile on while the GOPs shriek their heads off, as the average voter would be lost in the noise and tune some of this scandal out as more of it gets revealed.

   Besides, you can hit on John Doe without getting bogged down in the specifics of the case. Make the campaign about “trust”, “ethics” “corruption” along with subpar job growth, and all of those are advantage Burke.

   I’m not saying we should blindly trust Mike Tate (especially given his losing record), but I think they realize there are 4 1/2 months to hammer on this with. Unlike RW world, we don’t need to howl at the moon at every little turn. I’m not saying John Doe and the crookedness associated with it isn’t a big deal, but you can’t put all the eggs into that basket.

   What should be done is getting Burke out front and center as the relatively honest character she is, because that’s a stark contrast to the slime on the GOP side. Where are the ads, Mike?

6. I agree with Mike Tate on this one. Keep the message on getting people back to work. Let the media go after the Walker criminal investigation on their own.

7. 1. No Democrats won anything anywhere in 2010.
   2. As a result, the new legislative map put both houses out of reach for a decade.
   3. The recall election was the stupidest thing I’ve seen in three decades watching Wisconsin politics. People like you overlooked the fact that we a) didn’t have a candidate and b) the best candidate we had didn’t need a primary from someone whose claim to fame was that she was an enthusiastic puppet of public-sector unions.
   4. Tammy Baldwin, despite having the looniest voting record of any Democrat and the charisma of a paint sample, got elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012.

   So, what’s your complaint with Mike Tate? I look at the last few years and see a bunch of unwinnable elections – except we happened to win one with Baldwin. Do you think if you (or a human being of your choice) would have been party chair instead of Tate, we would have swept the tables? It’s just not a very powerful job. I know it’s comforting to think that someone, somewhere, is in charge. It ain’t so.

   I assume there’s some polling behind Tate’s statement. Even if there’s not, why the heck would he want to put himself in the center of the John Doe story in the first week? Recall that Walker’s main talking point is that the whole investigation is a vast Democratic conspiracy. By saying what he did, Tate gets a whole round of stories saying that, not only is Walker a crook, but he’s presided over some pretty mediocre economic performance as well…which I think is exactly what you want.

   1. “No Democrats won anything anywhere in 2010.”

      I love statements that include absolutes. Plenty of Democrats won seats all over the place, including a few here in Wisconsin.

   2. Is your online moniker a reminder to yourself, or meant to be, “elitist,” or sage advice to anyone who might read your comments PDTTH? Hard to tell behind what appears to to be your defeatist attitude toward electoral solutions affecting any chance of our (we the 99%) future well being in any fashion as citizens in a supposed democratic republic, a position that I am inclined to believe some of the time, myself.

      Unfair of you to even suggest that ZW might be naive enough to think Tate is exclusively in charge, but Tate is the public relations face of the party in the state, the person supposedly mirroring the public face of a group of people, whom at least formerly were thought to stand for certain principles of honesty, fairness, equality and social justice on several fronts.

      So kindly let us know who is in charge then, as you appear to claim having some inside information as to who or whom actually is in charge. I’ve previously and still do call for the state D’s to break all ties with the national D fascist leadership. Would you happen to be a member of the state D Administrative Committee, here making excuses for their joint ineffectiveness or elite blindness to RL (that’s Real Life) in WI for the rest of us?

      People trying to effect a change in the civilized and legal manner is the stupidist thing you witnessed in three decades in WI politics. Guess you never figured out that politics is not a spectator sport. Not sure whether or not I would be looking forward to hearing anything else from your mind to the keyboard to this comment section.

8. Tin Foil,

   You wrote: “1. No Democrats won anything anywhere in 2010.”

   Per Zach that’s not true, but a lot of the responsibility is on Obama and the Dems for not making DC the 51st state. DC has a more people than Wyoming and some other states. In 2008 Dems controlled both Houses of Congress and the Oval Office. Once DC is a state, you have two extra DEMOCRATIC Senators. It’s much easier to maintain control of the upper chamber.

   You wrote: “2. As a result, the new legislative map put both houses out of reach for a decade.”

   If that’s the case, why didn’t Barrett win?

   You wrote: “3. The recall election was the stupidest thing I’ve seen in three decades watching Wisconsin politics.”

   Capitalism runs on sales. The real “job creators” are consumers with money to spend.

   You wrote: “People like you overlooked the fact that we a) didn’t have a candidate

   Nope, you can’t have it both ways. Had the same candidate both times.

   You wrote: “and b) the best candidate we had didn’t need a primary from someone whose claim to fame was that she was an enthusiastic puppet of public-sector unions.”

   Thanks for outing yourself as a Wall Street Republican.

   Capitalism runs on sales. The real “job creators” are consumers with money to spend. We agree, unions are a pain in the neck. Without them, however, all the money flows to the top of the 1%.

   The numbers don’t lie

   “GRAPH: As Union Membership Has Declined, Income Inequality Has Skyrocketed In The United States”

   http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/03/147994/unions-income-inequality/

   The private-sector unions can’t make it on their own. Public sector unions are last-stand-hill for the 99%.

   “4. Tammy Baldwin, despite having the looniest voting record of any Democrat”

   When?

   Where?

   Did she ever vote against Big Ag, against Wall Street, against the Middle East Occupations? Probably a few times, but we always lost because the (regressive) Progressive caucus always takes turns playing Democrat.

   From March 2010 when Obama needed every Dem vote in the House for Obamacare.

   “…House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made a deal with Rep. Bart Stupak in order to secure his vote and that of other anti-choice Democrats for the health care bill, which is scheduled to be voted on this Sunday. According to a member of Congress who was briefed on the matter, Pelosi has agreed to let Stupak have a vote on his amendment, which instructs the Senate to substitute his language for the Senate language on abortion.

   FDL has obtained a copy of the concurrent resolution (PDF1, PDF2, PDF3, PDF4), which includes cosponsors Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Joseph Cao, Kathy Dahlkemper, Steve Driehaus, Marcy Kaptur, Dan Lipinski, Alan Mollohan, and Nick Rahall. A second source confirms that with the exception of Cao, these are the members of Congress who are still on the fence. Cao is still considered a firm “no” vote. …”

   http://firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/stupak-abortion-language-to-be-substituted-for-senate-language-in-deal-to-secure-health-care-votes/

   Tin Foil,

   Baldwin in one of the safest of the safe Dem districts, Madison, could have led the Progressive caucus in forcing Obama to BLOCK Stupak’s anti-choice Executive Order and include the PUBLIC OPTION where Americans could have had the right to BUY Medicare coverage. The health insurance oligopoly wouldn’t allow it, however, because then they would have had c-o-m-p-e-t-i-t-i-o-n. They couldn’t just use the IRS to FORCE Americans to buy LOUSY coverage. That’s why Republicans are so angry about Obamacare. And w/r/t the “individual mandate,” they’re 100% correct. The PUBLIC OPTION would have taken away the best weapon the GOP has had in destroying Obama’s approval rating and the approval rating of so many Dems.

   You think Senator Baldwin’s a lib, because she’s an “out” lesbian. Where was she fighting for Social Security? Where’s she been on legalizing pot? Where’s she been on prosecuting Wall Street? Where’s she been on pulling our troops out of the Middle East?

   You wrote: “and the charisma of a paint sample, got elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012.”

   Since you’re an expert on charisma, perhaps you could include Ms. Burke and all the state Senate Dems on your “charisma” scale.

   You wrote: “So, what’s your complaint with Mike Tate?”

   Let’s start with David Clarke and then move on to the much more serious problem, Chris Abele.

   You wrote: “I look at the last few years and see a bunch of unwinnable elections – except we happened to win one with Baldwin. Do you think if you (or a human being of your choice) would have been party chair instead of Tate, we would have swept the tables? It’s just not a very powerful job. I know it’s comforting to think that someone, somewhere, is in charge. It ain’t so.”

   Agree, Mr. Tate’s just a stand-in for Sen. Clinton’s re-election campaign. If that’s accurate, he should admit it and resign.

   You wrote: “I assume there’s some polling behind Tate’s statement.”

   If Mr. Tate were looking at any polls he’d notice the overwhelming numbers of Democrats and Republicans who want marijuana legalized. He would notice the tax revenue it would generate for the state and the savings.

   You wrote: “Even if there’s not, why the heck would he want to put himself in the center of the John Doe story in the first week?”

   First week?

   Rip Van Winkle, you’ve been asleep for a long time.

   You wrote: “Recall that Walker’s main talking point is that the whole investigation is a vast Democratic conspiracy.”

   There’s some comedy gold. Scott Walker/Charlie Sykes/Mark Belling/Mike Grebe has a talking point. We Democrats can’t disagree with a Republican talking point. LMAO

   You wrote: “By saying what he did, Tate gets a whole round of stories saying that,”

   Please show us links to all these “round” of stories that DPW or Ms. Burke’s campaign staff got placed with the media.

   Here’s one version of Tate’s statement: “That said, Mike Tate of the Democratic Party chair in Wisconsin spoke to The Washington Post to the effect that Wisconsin wouldn’t be dealing with any illegal action form its gubernatorial candidate.”

   http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politics/heres-how-governor-walker-showed-the-dark-side-of-citizens-united.html/?a=viewall

   Among other problems I point out above, Mr. Tate painted himself and Ms. Burke into a corner. Now they can’t say anything, without Mr. Tate having to eat his words, something I think is a really good idea.

   As a lot of people have pointed out, Tate/Burke has to be careful in what they say. You and Mr. Tate are correct, whatever the Dem talking points on the Doe are will be spun by the wing nuts as “partisan.” Messaging, talking points is more art than science, but it’s very, very tough. You’re speaking to a wide variety of people about complex issues. That’s the job. If Mr. Tate doesn’t like it he should resign.

   You wrote: “not only is Walker a crook,”

   Campaign finance is a little arcane. Walker and WIGOP are using that to their advantage. Why couldn’t Tate/Burke issue talking points that reference Walker’s email to Karl Rove. Was Rove on the ballot? A lot of tea party Republicans don’t like Rove, because he reminds them of the rest of the WALL STREET Republicans.

   Why couldn’t Tate/Burke educate voters about how all this money was coming from single sources. This wasn’t a lot of little donors throwing in $50. This money was from billionaires. “Billionaire” is a good word for Ms. Burke and Democrats. Linking Scott Walker to “billionaires,” is a smart move. My guess is that there are a lot of other billionaires
   in the Doe emails. David Einhorn and his Dad, Steve, are good bets. http://www.jsonline.com/business/einhorns-contribution-to-walker-could-trigger-paytoplay-rule-t57t0k7-182683161.html

   My guess is that Tate either suspects or knows that Dems are in those emails and he may trying to protect them down the road. Among the many problems with that strategy is that it telegraphs that Tate has any access to that information.

   You wrote: “but he’s presided over some pretty mediocre economic performance as well…which I think is exactly what you want.”

   Can you please explain why it took bombshell releases via Judge Easterbrook (a Reagan appointee) about oligarchs trying to buy Wisconsin for Mr. Tate to change the subject start talking about the dismal state of the Wisconsin economy? A lot of folks at Blogging Blue have been begging Tate/Burke to take a populist approach, an Eisenhower Republican approach to this election. Eisenhower supported unions. He invested in infrastructure and he taxed the super rich. If it worked for Ike, it can work for Ms. Burke and the Dems.

   Please, tell me what the Tate/Burke “plan” is for righting the Wisconsin economy.

   Do they support a federal job guarantee?

   “…The government could serve as the “employer of last resort” under a job guarantee program modeled on the WPA (the Works Progress Administration, in existence from 1935 to 1943 after being renamed the Work Projects Administration in 1939) and the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942). The program would offer a job to any American who was ready and willing to work at the federal minimum wage, plus legislated benefits. No time limits. No means testing. No minimum education or skill requirements. …”

   http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/07/a-plan-for-all-the-detroits-out-there.html

   What about the $800 million in FEDERAL dollars for high sped rail? Is Tate/Burke going to criticize Gov. Walker for that or do they agree with him?

   Ms. Burke has a degree in Finance from Georgetown. She understands what it means to be “off the gold standard.”

   “(Federal) Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete”

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-mosler/taxes-for-revenue-are-obs_b_542134.html

   “Four Reasons You Should Consider Washington’s Deficit As Your Surplus”

   http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2014/02/24/deficit-as-your-surplus/

   Do you remember all those cars we had to sell to pay for World War II?

   Nope, neither does anyone else. We paid in soldiers lives, in steel, in oil, in rubber….., but there was never any danger of us running of the currency.

   “If you can have full employment killing Germans …”
   http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=25857

   Republicans are right. We need to bring back the FULL holiday on both sides of the FEDERAL payroll and drastically cut income and corporate taxes on the 99%. Democrats are right. We need dramatically more FEDERAL spending on health care, education, and green infrastructure. We can run out of potable water, safe food, sustainable energy, some minerals metals. We cannot run out of dollars.*

   Zach’s been super loyal to Mr. Tate and Ms. Burke. I suspect it’s cost Blogging Blue in traffic and comments. I would strongly encourage Mr. Tate and Ms. Burke to listen closely to his concerns.

   If Ms. Burke loses, I fear Mr. Tate will try to point the finger at turnout. If that happens, I’ll link back to posts like this one. At some point parties have to define themselves. Is that tough, you betcha. My fundamental disagreement with the DPW and most national Dems is that they seem to think there’s a “middle.” I don’t see it. I don’t see right and left. I see 99.9999 and .00001. IMHO, Mr. Tate and Ms. Burke can use Republican terms to boost Dem’s chances in November, phrases such as “economic mobility” and “broadening the tax base.” I’m not saying that’s the right way to go, I’m saying when austerity hawks are in such control of both parties, I think those work.

   *This branch of economics is called Modern Monetary Theory #MMT. Here’s a blog http://neweconomicperspectives.org Some excellent folks on Twitter include @stephaniekelton @wbmosler @interfluidity @asymptosis ….

9. What does the release of emails from John Doe I and documents from John Doe II tell us about Gov. Walker?

   These papers present a guy who is preoccupied with political schemes, power, fundraising and national politics. Do we see concern about Wisconsin issues or people? Do we see interest or discussion about the details of policies that could move Wisconsin forward? Do we read about local issues in anything other than political terms? No; we just see that Scott Walker is a political junky. Yeah, he’s good at fundraising and campaigning. He has a pretty consistent political ideology. But nowhere do we see that he is concerned about Wisconsin’s people, working on creating jobs, thinking about smart public policy. The Dems should at least use the John Doe investigations to point out how Walker uses his time in office. He’s a candidate, not a Governor. He seeks political power, not good government.

Comments are closed.