Earlier today Steve reported he has received information that former Democratic State Senate candidate Martha Laning will soon be announcing a run for Chair of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.
I’ve been told by a reliable source that tomorrow, at the Democratic Party of Wisconsin County Chairs Association meeting in Plover, Martha Laning will announce she’s running for the Chair’s job. Laning ran in the 9th senate district last year against republican Devin LeMahieu and lost by quite a sizable margin.
To add to Steve’s original report, I’ve received information that current DPW Chair candidate Mary Lang Sollinger will pulling out of the race and endorsing Laning after Laning announces her candidacy.
According to my source, Laning’s candidacy would represent efforts by the “money people” within the party to elect the DPW Chair they want. “They want to make someone chair who has been a member for less than two years and is totally unreliable on labor, economic issues, abortion rights, etc. It’s unbelievable,” said the source, noting Joe Wineke, Jeff Smith, and Jason Rae are all reliably progressive while in the opinion of my source Martha Laning isn’t as reliably progressive.
As Steve wrote, something about Martha Laning’s rumored candidacy doesn’t pass the smell test.
8 thoughts on “Who or what is really behind Martha Laning’s purported run for DPW Chair?”
I’m suspecting that Martha Laning’s apparent DPW chair campaign is part of a possible 2018 gubernatorial campaign by Ron Kind, and that Lisa Hermann, the Democratic chair in Kind’s congressional district, is at least one of the individuals pulling the strings for Laning. That’s just speculation on my part that is based on what Steve Carlson wrote in the blog post you linked to.
Rae, Wineke and Smith are all reliably progressive? Remember your questions for all three? Very telling. One thinks being Progressive is dividing us all into issue segments (all the better to pander to or ignore, I suppose), one is an old-time liberal, and one seems to be the real deal but none, NONE really articulated how the chair will shape the state party to meet the gravest challenge of our time nor did they say how they were going to overcome the flood of right-wing money targeting low-information voters. So instead of a large cup ‘o morning hysteria from your anonymous source, just send her the questions and get the dialogue underway. Her November campaign site is still up and unlike other Democratic candidates she didn’t appear to run away from the tough positions.
I tried finding Laning’s senate page but it says I’m looking for a page that doesn’t exist. Can you link to it Emma? I’d like to see where she didn’t run away from the tough positions.
You’re right – they’re down and I was just there yesterday after your first post. But here’s what WI Soap Box had to say about her platform during the campaign: http://wisoapbox.blogspot.com/2013/10/state-sen-9th-democratic-candidate.html
Here’s a statement at the end of the blog post you linked to from former Dem state senator Jim Baumgart.
” Baumgart called Laning a moderate who brings experience from the private sector and an agenda that is friendly toward women. “
Are we really going to play pull-the-quote? Because here’s mine: “Hey WisDems’, are you paying attention to this lady? Holy crap, why the hell aren’t you campaigning EVERYONE with talking points like this!?”
Ask her what she stands for and why she wants to do the job. Maybe she’ll blow it. I don’t get why a year ago the lack of choice was bad, now suddenly, it’s not. If Smith is as good as you claim, he’ll only escalate his game. And don’t give me that weak tea about “they said no passing out literature”. Pull out your smartphone and start tweeting from the meeting. Send a Facebook message to everyone you know in the room. Stand in the parking lot after and pass out literature. Or JUST IGNORE that crap and pass out literature in the meeting. Their quaint rules are tired, stupid and should be blown to smithereens. So get on with it.
A year ago the issue wasn’t lack of choice, it was a decision to advance a candidate behind closed doors by a handful of insiders, and attempt to shut the other one out. Which is the same issue here. It’s telling, Emma, whoever you are, that you’re on the insiders side in both instances.
Who are the ‘money people’?
Comments are closed.