“It doesn’t matter if you are in the race for two years or two months. This proves that it’s about the right message and the right candidate.”
So said Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in reference to Ron Johnson’s candidacy for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Sen. Russ Feingold.
While Reince Priebus and Ron Johnson might want voters to believe the Republican Party of Wisconsin’s endorsement of Ron Johnson is all about “the right message and the right candidate,” what that endorsement is really about is “the right amount of money in the candidate’s bank account.” After all, Ron Johnson’s message – what little we know of it – is remarkably similar to the message of fellow Republican candidate Dave Westlake, so if the RPW’s endorsement really boiled down to the “right message,” then logic would dictate Dave Westlake would have finished better than third in the RPW’s U.S. Senate endorsement process.
The fact is, there’s no small measure of irony in Ron Johnson’s endorsement (or anointment) by Reince Priebus and the Republican Party of Wisconsin, because while Reince Priebus and the RPW have attacked Democrats for hand-picking the preferred Democratic candidate to run for the House seat currently held by Rep. Dave Obey, Priebus and the RPW were busy making sure they engineered the endorsement of Ron Johnson’s U.S. Senate campaign at the RPW convention, in the process forcing both Dick Leinenkugel and later Terrence Wall right out of the Republican U.S. Senate race. Despite Johnson’s appearances at “Tea Party” events in Oshkosh and Madison, he’s clearly the choice of the Republican establishment, and it will be interesting to see if that helps or hurts his chances in the Republican primary.
First of all, nothing the chairman of the RPW or the DPW say should be taken at face value. Heck, I’d say don’t bother ever quoting either of them as they will never add anything intelligent to discuss. They’re by definition, partisan and furthering their organization is their sole motivation.
That said, the fact that both Leinekugel and Wall both were as well as, if not better funded than Johnson pretty much shreds your “it’s all about the money” claim. If they wanted the seat bad enough, they could’ve supported Leinenkugel but he was clearly not the right guy because he couldn’t/wouldn’t answer the Doyle questions. And plainly, Wall was unelectable. Period. Anyone with an ounce of foresight knows that a politician of Feingold’s experience, with his money would blast Wall 24/7 on the tax issue and there’s no way he could overcome it.
I’m sorry but this comes off as whining about how the Republicans chose a nominee. Endorsing a candidate at a convention is just one element and is at least discussed by the party faithful. Who decided Julie Lassa would be the chosen one? A few people in a small room? But that’s a matter for the Democrats so I don’t really care. You run against what’s before you. Are you just a little sore that you won’t have any more T Wall posts or nervous about Fein’s lackluster poll numbers?
I’m neither sore nor nervous, but thanks for your concern. There will be plenty to write about Ron Johnson, and I wouldn’t put much stock in polling, especially if it’s coming from Rasmussen.
I honestly do look forward to your take on Ron Johnson and the race. I don’t know much about him so it will be interesting to see how he conducts his campaign. My reference to polling was not one particlar poll, but since the race generated some national attention I figured some of the people in the know think it might be competitive. And you know I’m always concerned about you. lol Here’s to an interesting summer of campaigns!
Actually the party endorsement seems to negate Mr. Johnson’s tea party credentials. Since the other candidates who have withdrawn from the race also had serious money to rely on it looks more like Mr. Johnson himself is the shrewder consummate back room politician. Mr. Westlake’s actual grass roots candidacy may actually surprise the party bosses with its staying power.
I’m getting a chuckle out of Reince Priebus not being concerned about when Johnson got into the race, yet he attacked Barrett for waiting until only a year before the election to join.
And Locke, I’m pretty sure I remember seeing you post there, but if you haven’t you should take your comment on the party chairs to the Mike Tate Watch blog, that poor kid seems to think Mike Tate is dictating policy to the legislature and governor.
I won’t say that I haven’t posted there (don’t remember either way) but it’s not a site I’m familiar with or read in general. If I did post there it was following a link from somewhere (probably here) where I agreed/disagreed with a particular post or comment.
That said, I don’t have any issues with somebody in effect, “heckling” or poking fun of Tate or Priebus. I just don’t think what people in their position say should be considered in a reasonable & rational discussion. (My guess is I wouldn’t consider the Mike Tate Watch fits that criteria. This blog does (at least at times, the posting of press releases from OWN, etc certainly aren’t).
Locke, I’d have to disagree with your assertion that simply because an organization or individual is partisan, that means they’re incapable of reasonable and rational discussion.
I didn’t say it for all partisans categorically. For most, I’ll try to ignore the politics and assess the idea based solely on it’s merits rather than who says it. But in certain cases, not so much. If you’re the head of either party on a state or national level, your sole job is to promote the party. The same goes for the heads of unions and organizations like WMC, etc. Their jobs are not to do what’s best for any of us, they seem to have no real burden of proof, don’t have to really tell the truth. They serve to promote their organization, period. And aren’t worth the time it takes to read or listen to what they have to say.