In Brief: Dave Westlake edition

Dave Westlake is running for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Russ Feingold in 2010, and I don’t know about you all, but I’m positively excited to see this race unfold!

Here’s just a few tidbits I found interesting about Dave Westlake, as I used The Google to get a little background:

  • First let’s start with Westlake’s comments attacking liberals (including Sen. Feingold) for wanting “public broadcast of unflattering or slanderous photos of U.S. servicemen and women engaging in questionable, if not illegal, acts.” So here’s what I’m wondering: if Dave Westlake thinks publicly broadcasting photos of U.S. servicemen and woman engaging in illegal acts would be slanderous, then how does he feel about the public broadcast of surveillance photos and videos as a tool to help catch criminals? Wouldn’t that be considered “slanderous” and “unflattering” to those criminals, if we apply Dave Westlake’s logic? In the same missive as linked above, Westlake goes on to say:

    The real reason Senator Feingold and the minority in America insist on having these photos released is because they like nothing more than when our proud nation is humbled.

    Ah, there’s nothing more refreshing from a candidate for the United States Senate than to assert his opponent hates America.

  • I also found the Westlake for Senate campaign slogan to be interesting: “I believe in you. Do you?” Call me crazy (and you wouldn’t be the first), but that’s a slogan that makes Westlake sound more like a motivational speaker and less like a Senate candidate. In a recent article, Westlake is also quoted as saying, “I believe in Wisconsinites. Now, I want to give Wisconsinites a reason to believe in themselves.” So here’s my question to Dave Westlake: What makes you think Wisconsinites don’t believe in themselves? I know I believe in myself, and pretty much all my friends believe in themselves, so I’m wondering where Westlake is meeting all these Wisconsinites with such low self-esteem.
  • And finally, there’s this little gem, courtesy of the Westlake for Senate Facebook page:

    Dave wrote at 4:00pm yesterday
    Well, we’re just over 2 weeks down the campaign trail and I’ve already got “progressives” blogging about our campaign! Is that a badge of honor or what? The best thing about it is they’re saying exactly what I hoped they would…

    As one of the “progressive” bloggers writing about Dave Westlake, I’m honored by the shout-out, and I promise to keep mentioning him, as long as he keeps mentioning me, but what’s up with the quotation marks around progressive?

Now excuse me while I go add Dave Westlake and his Senate page to my Facebook friends list!


Related Articles

12 thoughts on “In Brief: Dave Westlake edition

  1. Ah you’re just falling into Westlake’s trap…just as he knew you would, mister “Blogging Blue.”

    1. And what trap is that? To date, what I’m seeing from Dave is either hyperbole, or not specific enough to be a real stand. For instance, where he claims to be for family and life, he’s unclear on issues like gay marriage. He clearly identifies the religious component of marriage and expresses his support of that. OTOH, he ignore the civil component. Does that mean he support civil unions? Is he willing to decouple the two constructs of marriage? Similarly, on the role of government, he’s vague. Does he believe in regulation or not? And then, to what level of regulation. IMHO, Dave has a lot of work to do before he’ll be considered a serious candidate.

      1. Harry, I’m not exactly sure what Dave Westlake’s trap is, but I’m sure he’ll spring it at the most opportune moment!

  2. According to Dave at, he’s made numerous mistakes, both large and small. But it’s no matter because he asked for God’s forgiveness, which liberates and embowers him to shove his morals down your throat. Typical Repug. So get to work and find out what all these small and large numerous mistakes are. Wonder if he’ll still be bragging about being talked about on the “progressive” blogs then.

  3. “if Dave Westlake thinks publicly broadcasting photos of U.S. servicemen and woman engaging in illegal acts would be slanderous, then how does he feel about the public broadcast of surveillance photos and videos as a tool to help catch criminals?”

    Apples and oranges. One is using surveillance to “catch” the unknown criminal and the other is to make a political statement about those who were already caught.

    Let’s not play the game of politics or semantics. Let’s stand up for what is right. I have heard much about our treatment of prisoners. I have yet to see where we put them on tv and chopped their heads off. I see people wanting to protect everyone’s rights but our own.

    It’s time we think a little bit more realistically. Many of our soldiers die because we are afraid to accidentally kill civilians yet when it inevitably happens (it does in war) the liberals come out screaming how bad we are.

    Perhaps it is time to defend our soldiers, our Country and our way of life. If we don’t wake up, all our rear ends will be facing the sun 5x a day.

  4. Thanks for your comments, Jack. The release of incriminating photos of our soldiers serves one purpose – to embarrass our soldiers, our government and our country. If the soldiers behaved dishonorably or illegally, then they should be punished. But insisting on giving more rights to those who wish to anhilate us (like granting American civilian liberties, like a civilian trial to terrorists who tore our world apart because they don’t like us) rather than giving the same to our soldiers is criminal and 100% un-American. They are put in crazy situations with these evil people, but are expected to act like well-controlled, gentle role-models for the world. They should do the right thing – but are pictures necessary? I’ll bet everything I have that no one gives a damn to see pictures like that except you National Inquirer subscriber types, and maybe PETA because there may have been a goat involved that could have gotten hurt. Russ wants the 9-11 terrorists to have their day in court. Isn’t that nice? They already plead guilty, so this is about making all of our national security information to be made public. How politically correct! Not my politics. Russ Fiengold slaps our faces with just about every move he makes. Remember – he was the only one to try to block the Patriot Act. It was only for PATRIOTS. He has to be replaced – he doesn’t represent Wisconsin, or America.

    1. Kris, I’d argue Sen. Feingold’s opposition to the PATRIOT Act was the ultimate act of patriotism, because he took a stand against the infringement on our rights that the PATRIOT Act represents.

  5. Exactly which 911 terrorists are we talking about… Are we talking about George Bush’s younger brother reducing the security level at the World Trade Center by reducing staff and removing bomb sniffing dogs… or perhaps the new owner of the lease for those building that were attacked right after the insurance policy ink was dry (3 months) on a multi billion dollar policy. Russ Feingold is far closer to the working class than 90% of those “Representative” that are in Washington lining their pockets with Your money. It is time for the 28th amendment to the constitution and ALL of our representative should be willing to sign on… or retire now.

    Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

    “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and Representatives; Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States”.

    Change that really matters

Comments are closed.