At this point in the 2014 campaign, I am firmly in the Senator Vinehout for Governor camp. And despite that I haven’t had any issue with Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Mike Tate…until now.
The conventional wisdom is it is going to take some serious money to defeat Governor Walker in 2014. And the fact that he won the 2012 recall by having his supporters outspend Mayor Barrett’s team 3 to 1 would support that assumption.
But in an article about Senator Kathleen Vinehout’s pre-campaign visits around the state, Jack Craver of The Cap Times talks about running a campaign against the big money interests.
Senator Vinehout is quoted as saying:
“…in the month of October, I’ve found a lot of people who are willing to help, I’m talking about running a grassroots campaign, a campaign that would involve people all over the state, putting their time and energy into what I think a lot of people want to do, which is get rid of this governor.”
The Democrats, said Vinehout, are making the mistake of trying to play by the money-driven rules established by corporate-funded Republicans. To win, she said, Democrats have to “turn the conventional wisdom on its head.”
But Mr. Tate offers this opposing view point:
While calling Vinehout a “phenomenal public servant and intellectual heavyweight,” state Democratic Party chair Mike Tate expressed concern that she would be able to mount an effective campaign, adding that it would be a “great loss to the people of Wisconsin” if she weren’t still in public office in January of 2015.
“The reality is that while we will never have as much money as Scott Walker it is not realistic to believe you can defeat him without running a serious, professional campaign that raises enough money to get the Democratic message out,” Tate said in a statement. “The stakes are too high for our families that are struggling under Scott Walkers policies for anyone to attempt a bid for Governor that will not and cannot raise the money needed to run a grassroots campaign that can communicate with voters at their door, via television, direct mail and the Internet. Modern times require modern campaigns.”
Now, Mr. Tate might very well be right…but this is probably not the time to be offering that opinion. If Sen. Vinehout thinks she has the support of the electorate and can mount a viable campaign, she really should be free to do so. I don’t think primaries are bad…I don’t think they should be avoided…and I don’t think my party chair should have offered this information in this context.
I look forward to seeing Mary Burke’s campaign develop and I look forward to Senator Vinehout’s decision.
From a previous thread here (BB)this afternoon after reading the same article in the LaCrosse Tribune.
Tate may not be directly promoting Burke as he had previously claimed but this is definitely an attempt to discredit Vinehout’s chances. Sadly, I guess that is allowable.
Would she not get the DPW support if she entered and won the primary?
Any talk by DPW should be positive and the quotes by Tate in the linked article above are petty, disgusting and deplorable. There is no way to put a positive spin on Tate’s comments and his obvious tactics. None.
Ed,
Paul Fanlunds piece isn’t rational, joining the party as an individual to change the party from within is ridiculous, and it’s good to see the guy who likes to play the wise old man on this blog start to actually wise up.
“…joining the party as an individual to change the party from within is ridiculous…” I don’t know, how is throwing rocks that the party from the outside working out for you?
Ed,
I think a better question is how is the constant covert and overt denigration of dissenting voices working out for the DPW?
I agree, Steve.
There is a saying that standing idly by makes one complicit when such acts are unethical, unwise, unfair, unjust, unprincipled, immoral, ill-advised, harmful, or just plain wrong.
My conscience compels me to speak out against Mike Tate’s unconscionable decisions and their bad effects.
Personally, I think it’s too late for Kathleen Vinehout to turn around and run for re-election to the state senate. She’s already trying to make the Democratic primary for the Wisconsin gubernatorial race a referendum on the Citizens United SCOTUS decision and the way that the Democratic establishment operates these days, and for Vinehout to turn around and run for re-election to the state senate would absolutely demoralize Wisconsin Democrats/progressives who are disaffected with the Democratic establishment.
Actually Aaron, the average progressive will be fired up to take out Scott Walker regardless of who the candidate is, and progressives will get behind a strong voice like Vinehout’s, regardless of whether she runs for Guv or State Senate.
And 95% of the voters won’t care about a lot of these insider shenanigans until the Summer. They just care about the choices they’ll have in the races that are out there.
You know why it’s that way? Because unlike you, they have a whole lot of other things to care about in their everyday lives.
Actually, we all have a lot of things in out daily lives to care about. On top of that we are asked to support Health Care Reform, Environmental Support, Education Revision with or without ethnicity concerns, A Constitutional Convention, Democratic candidates all over America and their corporate financed opposition, Every bill that Corporate controlled Republicans want to slip into their public suppression canon. We can’t do all that, that’s why we are being defeated on issues that should be obvious to any thinking person.
We need our best politicians who are paid and trained to represent our interests, understand the longterm consequences of legislation and have the time and skills to protect and defend their constituency.
Wisconsin has an opportunity to elect a PhD with certified public health training as Governor: Someone who has been repeatedly elected in an unfavorable district; and who has written extensively and commendably on Wisconsin political issues and legislation.
It will surely help ease all our cares to allow Kathleen Vinehout to address those many critical issues for us as Governor of this still great state.
WOW !!! A+
Not trying to attack, insult or embarrass you Cat, your comment is merely a good starting point (thanks) for mine, and I’ll state that you are getting perilously close to arguing against the very point of Vinehout’s possible candidacy.
We need candidates who have demonstrated that they are on the populist side already with most of their past performance and policy statements. Paying them or attempting to train them is nearly an argument favoring Tate’s approach and theory of total party control. One has only to watch Tate’s performance, and look at who (quietly behind the scenes, with non-elected power and paid for influence for delivering top-down national political directives), someone like Tanya Bjork for instance, does to perpetuate the rigged system orchestrated to castrate small “d,” democracy.
http://purplerayne.weebly.com/2/post/2013/10/tanya-bjork-more-to-know.html
I know that many party loyalists are happy with the ACA upward and limitless wealth transfer, secret DOJ orders sanctioning drone murders, prosecution at unprecedented levels of government watchdogs, NSA surveillance of this blog and message, with secret TPP, TAIP negotiations transferring US sovereignty and wealth to multi-national corporations, with the continuing $85B a month going to the largest banks while children and granny starve, with the recent capitulation to handing over to OFA almost all of WI DPW assets for the re-election of our POTUS who willingly favors and is pushing all of the above.
Bjork was apparently key in making the OFA coup happen in this swing state and please ask yourself, do Democrats really want this type of electorial/campaign system to persist? That is the question behind this gubernatorial race, beating the 1% coming from, “both sides of the isle,” thus hopefully breaking a link in our otherwise perpetual chains.
This fight is not just against Walker. Democrats who are still in denial that they are just the slightly more left wing of plutocratic party, yet still supporting it, need to be acknowledging this obvious fact, and apply the understanding of the lesson, or not much is going to change politically with Burke. Any of us wishing to encourage Vinehout have also asked ourselves the question, whose interests does an operative like Bjork, really support? Myself, I see her and Tate looking out for their personal number one, no matter the cost to the rest of us.
The number of comments at Eric’s recent post on Capitalism is proof to me of they party blinders to their own capitulation to what most claim they are against by continuing to support party over policy, Democrats. Vinehout is only a start at breaking the cycle and I am glad to see people are not being too easily dissuaded from supporting her and thus hopefully, her primary challenge will ensue.
I’m sure, like most comments on this board that don’t advocate Malcom X type revolution, Windmill, the core of my comments regarding Senator Vinehout blew right past you.
The biggest reason I support Senator Vinehout among the many, is that it’s time for local Democrats to step out of amateur hour. The point of my whole scread–in fact most of them–is that the Democrats–national races excepted—are being scuttled by highly trained, researched and tested professional media experts. The Republican Tea Party independents, despite some very good intel from ALEC, have also fallen into that trap, thank Goodness.
The candidate for governor who supports the highest degree of individual freedom on Guns, Gays, God, and Marijuana has the best chance of beating Scott Walker. Money cannot buy winning policy issues for a candidate.