A few points of clarification on Mary Burke

I just wanted to take a moment to clarify a few things regarding my thoughts on Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke.

  • There’s no denying I’ve been critical of Mary Burke and the way her campaign has been rolled out over the past few weeks, but that doesn’t mean I’ve made up my mind that I won’t support her. At this point in the process, I’m still gathering information about Burke and her possible primary opponent(s), and I have some concerns about where Burke stands on a variety of issues. Until those concerns are adequately addressed, I’m going to continue to be skeptical of Burke. Many of the concerns I’ve raised and criticisms I’ve leveled against Burke and her campaign are concerns that I share with many others, and that’s why I think they need to be acknowledged and addressed.
  • There have been charges made on Facebook and Twitter that coverage of Mary Burke and her campaign by Wisconsin’s male progressive bloggers has been sexist. Unfortunately, those charges were made against “male progressive bloggers” as a group, rather than against specific individuals, so I wanted to take a moment to solicit constructive feedback what I can do to improve my coverage of Mary Burke to avoid any implication on my part that her gender has anything to do with my coverage or criticism of Burke. While I’d like to think I’ve tried to cover/criticize Mary Burke and her campaign without bringing her gender into the situation, I know I’m not perfect, so I wanted to take this opportunity to hear from readers on what they think.
  • Finally, I just want to say that I look forward to a spirited Democratic gubernatorial primary in which Mary Burke and her opponent(s) can explain to Democrats exactly what they stand for and why they deserve to be the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, because that’s what Democrats in Wisconsin expect and deserve.
Share:

Related Articles

20 thoughts on “A few points of clarification on Mary Burke

  1. I haven’t found any remarks about Ms. Burke to be sexist … and I’m pretty conscious of those sorts of remarks.

    Rather, I’ve seen criticism to Ms. Burke’s positions.

    Is the Burke campaign complaining about sexist remarks?

  2. burke has already said she stands for NOTHING!

    But that was barrett’s position too — this is going to be a trainwreck that will catapult the corporate tool and george WALKER bush’s cousin back onto the national stage in a big way.

  3. We have an epidemy of money in politics. Just because a candidate has more money than a different possible candidate does not make that candidate better. In order for our democracy to flourish we are going to have to look to support candidates for office who study and write policy, rather than relying on special interest groups to do the work for them.

  4. Zach, I am glad somebody is willing to stand up and address this sexism thing directly. It is not only ludicrous, it is harming the candidate. If she or her supporters and proxies can’t defend her positions from her allies without resorting to claiming any critique is “sexist” how exactly is she going to handle Walker or his proxies when they start attacking her. I will tell you right now if people start screaming about sexism during the general campaign it isn’t going to get her one more vote and will certainly tun off a lot of men who might be swayed to vote against Walker. I am not saying that actual sexism shouldn’t be confronted but when the argument is about positions not personality, you aren’t doing anyone any good by immediately making untenable accusations.

    1. And the out-of-general-favor with even the right-wingnuts, bottom feeders, rise at the the break of dawn bankers’ hours for their morning constitutional.

  5. Zach,
    The only instance I’ve seen directly was Capper or someone at Cog Dis using “gals” in reference to Burke and her team, which they later edited after being questioned about it in comments.
    Of far greater to concern to me is the “Cut off your nose to spite your face” campaign of “purity above all” some lefty bloggers are taking toward Burke and her manager, Tanya Bjork. Jeff Simpson at Cog Dis unleashed a series of character assassination pieces against Bjork that would have made Lee Atwater proud. Yes, Bjork and her husband are lobbyists, but they’re about the only friends Democrats have in the lobbying corps. She’s also been involved at very high levels in many Dem campaigns since the caucus scandals of well over a decade ago. They came from the ugly way business used to be handled under the dome by BOTH sides, so get over it.
    Pardon me if I’m hijacking the thread, but my comments aren’t being accepted at Cog Dis (iPad issue?).
    So while I’m at it, the hard lefty bloggers also need to get over their fantasy about Vinehout. She’s not going to run. I love her, I admire her, she’s smart as hell, but she hasn’t and won’t raise any money, so she’d be a disaster as the nominee against the Walker machine. She barely won her last race against a dying man (Ed Thompson) by 400 votes.
    Jeff has a comment today from Cindy K. thanking him for his fine work benefiting Walker. Hellooooo…please, let’s quit poisoning our own well. I’ll give the Burke campaign a little more time. So far, Blaska and all the teabaggers are loving quoting all OUR Teahadists of the Left. Let’s get a freaking clue here, people
    AnonyBob

    1. I do wish to thank you for the additional information about Tanya Bjork and her husband. Agreeing, the more known the better.

      However, Blaska or to your comment, Cindy K are somehow worrying you? Really? You think they have any significant influence over much of anything other than listening to themselves type? No need to answer, I just don’t fear them in the least.

    2. AnonyBob,

      Winning a seat on the Madison School Board is 100 times easier than winning the 31st Senate District in the year 2010 with a top tier challenger. The evidence that Burke can raise large sums of money is Zero in addition to Zero evidence that Vinehout cannot raise large sums of money. We already know where Vinehout stands on the issues given her legislative record.

      1. AJ,
        A cursory look at Vinehout’s finance report with the GAB shows she raised just $14,000 in the first 6 months of this year. She has $10,000 on hand. You think that’s someone seriously considering a run for Governor? Sorry, but money does talk, and she’s not even whispering. If I were you guys, I’d worry about her being able to hold onto her Senate seat, much less go for a higher office. Be realistic.
        Burke at least has some resources of her own she’s probably willing to commit (as she did for her school board seat, and if you know anything about local Madison elections, they ain’t beanbag).
        Frankly, post-Act 10 and Citizens United, a bunch of piddly $25 or $50 contributions from public employees and progressive activists is not going to get you far. Burke can at least probably raise money from people that have it. Act 10 is not unpopular once you get out of Madison; Burke is smart to keep that issue at arm’s length.
        And you know Vinehout’s record? Plenty of targets there. The fact that the GOP is not running ads against her means they know they don’t need to.
        AnonyBob

        1. Thanks for your perspective AnonyBob,

          So to hedge one’s bet, YOUR’S for example, sending a small or sizable donation to Ms Vinehout right now, telling her you would love to see her in the gubernatorial race is a no lose proposition. If she decides not to oppose Burke in a primary, Vinehout has a bit more cash to help her retain her Senate seat next time round.

          Win-Win situation. What are you waiting for? Mike Tate to speak?

        2. The thing of it is, look at all times candidate with less money wins. A candidates grasp of the issues is what matters most to the voter. If all the general election is going to be about is the fundraising horse race we already know Walker wins.

          1. In 1978, Lee Dreyfus defeated Bob Kasten in the GOP gubernatorial primary in Wisconsin despite the fact that Dreyfus didn’t run a single paid advertisement in the primary and had a campaign budget of only $100,000.

            In 1992, Russ Feingold easily defeated two primary challengers in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary, one of which was a wealthy businessman and the other was a well-connected politician.

            Mary Burke could easily lose the Democratic primary to an underfunded candidate the way she’s running her campaign right now.

        3. Duh!

          AnyBob, stop your cursing. You completely miss the fact that Senator Vinehout has not announced she is a candidate. Her finance report does not include IOUs, future commitments, or conditional cash. Hold your negativeness until January, 2013. In the meanwhile, take an evening course in Beginning Accounting and Reading GAB Finance Reports.

  6. Good discussion.
    Nonquix: I would never discourage you sending a donation, large or small, to a good Democrat like Vinehout. She needs and deserves our help. What I’d like to discourage is the disparagement of Burke just because she has a business background, has money, or whatever. She is no slouch, even if she isn’t the ideal.
    AJ: it isn’t often that the candidate with less money wins. Grasp of the issues? Maybe you’ve noticed Feingold is no longer our US Senator.
    Aaron: 1978 is 35 years ago. Proxmire also used to be able to get elected with spending no money, but it’s no longer relevant. Feingold won the primary because Checota and Moody beat the hell out of other and ignored him. He won because he was the least bloodied in a three way race. I agree Burke needs to step it up: I’m willing to see how she develops.
    Duane: As I said, a cursory look at her report. I don’t claim to be finance report expert, or even a beginning accountant. So, school me.
    Best to you all,
    AnonyBob

    1. Thank you, Bob, and I hope you took no offense at my humor. Anyone, even the anonymous, interested in Senator Vinehout is a friend of mine.

  7. I am undecided about Mary Burke. At the same time, I think we should avoid tearing down fellow Dems in primaries (assuming there is one). Even if Burke is flawed (most candidates are), there’s a 99% chance I’d vote for her against Walker despite those flaws. I rarely agree with any candidate 100% — even candidates I strongly support.

    I’d like to see a bunch of people get in the primary. Maybe some of these bloggers should get in. They could find out how difficult it is to run a statewide campaign for Governor. Maybe one of them would catch fire and be the next Russ Feingold. Maybe there’s a state rep or state senator out there who would fit the bill. Perhaps a county official. We’ll never know unless they get on the ballot.

    Why might they not get on the ballot? See how Mary Burke is getting smacked around by her own side just a week or so after her announcement. That would deter anyone.

    A primary would likely benefit the winner. A candidate who wins a primary often gains name recognition, momentum and builds their skills as a candidate for the general. The only way a primary won’t benefit the Democratic nominee is if we tear them to pieces in the process. Recall that one of the things that helped Tammy Baldwin get elected to the Senate was how Tommy Thompson got beaten up in the primary.

    Let’s all agree on one thing. We may have our policy differences and disagree about which Democrat is better qualified, but we can all agree that Walker and his regime must be defeated.

    Whether Burke is the right candidate or not, she shouldn’t be attacked just for getting in. It takes a great deal of courage and commitment to get into a race like this. At least give her credit for that.

    I will say that I’m disappointed that WEAC, SEIU and others failed to give Tom Barrett more support in 2010 and in the recall. There is no doubt in my mind that we would have been better off with Barrett rather than Walker. Barrett may not have been the ideal candidate, but it seems to me that a terrible price was paid by too many people because union political leadership ran Barrett down and wouldn’t support him back then. Meanwhile we also lost both houses of the Legislature in a reapportionment election cycle. Oops! Of course, most of the people who made those decisions are now in other political jobs — in Washington or elsewhere out of state. The rest of us are stuck back here in Wisconsin dealing with Walker and a gerrymandered Tea Party Legislature.

    Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee will be a decided underdog. They will need all of the support we can give them to win. Ask yourself this: Do you want four more years of Walker? Or can you live with whoever gets the nomination — whether it’s Mary Burke or another Democrat serving as a check on the Tea Party Legislature?

    If we lose, what will Walker and the Tea Party do to this state next?

Comments are closed.