On Monday Martha Laning announced her candidacy for Chairwoman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin had received the endorsement of the PEOPLE Conference of AFSCME, the union representing many of Wisconsin’s public employees.
Martha Laning is proud to announce her endorsement by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees PEOPLE Conference (AFSCME PEOPLE) for her bid as Democratic Party of Wisconsin State Chair.
Martha has long shared the values and beliefs of organized labor and recognizes the critical role that labor unions such as AFSCME play in keeping workplaces safe and fair for all employees.
“Martha Laning is the kind of talented and visionary leader that we need right now to get our state heading back in the right direction. Working families need leaders like Martha, who are committed to rebuilding the middle class and stopping attacks on worker rights,” said Julie Jansch of Green Bay, a member of the AFSCME PEOPLE steering committee; ”We are proud to stand with Martha Laning as she works to move the Democratic Party and our state forward towards a brighter future.”
In response, Laning stated, “I am honored that the members of AFSCME PEOPLE have placed their confidence in my candidacy for Democratic Party State Chair. It is a crucial time in Wisconsin and we need to stand up and ensure our state’s legislative policies promote employee’s voices in the workplace. It is my firm belief that we as a party need to reach out and work together with our brothers and sisters in organized labor. When employees have a voice on the job, everyone involved benefits.”
What’s interesting (or shocking, depending on your perspective) about AFSCME’s endorsement of Martha Laning is that of all the candidates vying to become the next DPW Chair, Laning has the shortest record of support for organized labor and public employees.
In fact, during her 2014 State Senate campaign, Laning said she “acknowledged a need” for some of the principles behind Gov. Scott Walker’s anti-union Act 10 legislation, which took money directly out of the pockets of unionized public employees while simultaneously weakening public employee unions.
Although she acknowledges the need for some of the financial principles behind the controversial Act 10 legislation, which eliminated the collective bargaining ability of most public employees, Laning believes a solution could have been implemented more effectively.
“In 2011 we had a huge deficit and I agree that we needed to balance the budget,” Laning said.”
During the 2014 Martha Laning also made it clear that even if public employees did regain the right to collectively bargain, they shouldn’t expect to have their past benefits restored.
Laning supports public employees regaining the ability to bargain and said it wouldn’t necessarily mean their past benefits would be restored.
So what I’m wondering is if Martha Laning the DPW Chair candidate still believes that Martha Laning the State Senate candidate was right when she said that the principles behind Act 10 were necessary, and then I’m left to wonder why AFSCME felt compelled to endorse Martha Laning and her mixed record over other candidates who have a much longer history of vocal support for public employees and organized labor.
AFSCME PEOPLE not all of AFSCME. State of Wisconsin employees and their elected Union leaders had no voice in that decision at all
@Paul-
http://www.afscme.org/members/afscme-people
I looked at their website. Please explain how AFSCME state employees and their leaders had no voice.
There are three AFSCME affiliates in Wisconsin for about nine more days and while that lasts there are different political action committees. The link you shared is to the national PEOPLE conference, which is not the group that endorsed in this race. The group that endorsed in this race is primarily municipal and county workers from across the state in the Wisconsin AFSCME PEOPLE conference. She does make that crystal clear if you read the press release. No elected leader of the Wisconsin State Employees Union was present to vote on that endorsement. As someone who sits on the executive board of the Wisconsin State Employees Union I can assure you that given her position on Act 10 there would have at bare minimum been a serious fight about any support for this candidate
Paul, I’d be curious to know what role Jason Sidener, the Director of Organizing and Political Action for Council 40, played in the PEOPLE Committee’s decision to endorse Laning. After all, Sidener and his wife are supporters of Laning’s candidacy.
I wonder what former Target executive Laning’s views on this are?
http://gawker.com/behold-targets-brand-new-cheesy-anti-union-video-1547193676
Since when is losing a targeted Senate seat by TWENTY POINTS a qualification to Chair? Also, please clarify the headline– one part of AFSCME endorsed her.
You can take the girl out of Target, but you can’t take the Target Executive out of the girl I guess.
From the endoresment:
“Martha Laning is the kind of talented and visionary leader that we need right now to get our state heading back in the right direction. Working families need leaders like Martha, who are committed to rebuilding the middle class and stopping attacks on worker rights,” Julie Jansch of Green Bay, a member of the AFSCME PEOPLE steering committee. ”We are proud to stand with Martha Laning as she works to move the Democratic Party and our state forward towards a brighter future.”
Maybe someone else can clarify this for me. Is this a single person, Julie Jansch, a member’s endorsement? Or is it a AFSCME PEOPLE’s endorsement?
I think she misses the opportunity to explain the “deficit” as well as the partisan nature of Act 10. Maybe she did though and that’s why they endorsed her. Or maybe it’s just realpolitik. Restoring collective bargaining is probably as much as anyone can hope for in our virulently anti-union climate. The Chicago mayoral race was an interesting case study. Just like here Progressives struggle to show how they have more to offer than tax and spend and they fail to convert their anti-establishment support into actual votes.
Emma,
Your comment strikes me as coming from someone hurrying through multiple talking points cards and getting them mixed up.
Your comment strikes me as ad hominem. And what are talking point cards anyway? Are they some ancient communication device like sending a runner out to share the news of the day?
Come on, Emma, try the seamless segue from the AFSCME endorsement of Laning to Rahm Emanuel’s victory one more time. You can do it.
Emma,
Others have pointed out the unusual timing of Ms. Laning’s entry into the DPW-chair race and I think Sen. Vinehout’s comments below confirm that. Her decision to support Ms. Laning, is very recent. She didn’t disagree when Steve Walters stated they were friends. If that’s the case, why wasn’t she supporting Ms. Laning before the Stevens Point meeting, or what happened at that meeting that changed Sen. Vinehout’s mind?
Below is a rough transcription of some of the Steve Walters, Sen. Vinehout conversation.
http://bloggingblue.com/2015/03/kathleen-vinehout-endorses-martha-laning-for-dpw-chair-video/
after 00:35 – 00:59
Steve: “Wisconsin Eye has been going around to 15 Democratic legislators asking them if they’ve endorsed anyone of the five candidates. When I asked Sen. Vinehout, Democrat from Alma, 31st Senate District, she said, “check with me next week.” When I checked with her this week, she said, “let’s do an interview.”
Sen. Vinehout: after 5:45 “…. Wait until after the 28th February, we’re having a gathering over in Stevens Point, all of the County Chairs, …60 people, basic business planning process, Lisa Herman and Martha Laning chaired that meeting,”
Starting after 10:40, Steve says, “Martha Laning, ran for the State Senate and good friend of yours,….”
Sen. Vinehout doesn’t correct Steve.
Steve after 11:00, “do you endorse Martha Laning?”
Sen. Vinehout: after 11:15 “Absolutely, Martha’s a fresh face to the party. She brings the perspective of a grown-up and frankly one of the problems we have is that there’s too much juvenille name-calling, especially in the press, that’s hurting our possibilities outside of Madison and Milwaukee. Is it playing to the base of course, … we have their votes. We have to convince people who are not engaged, or are independents. Martha comes with a fresh attitude, she brings a strong background in leadership and management. She most recently worked on a community center, a multi-generational…she raised $4.6 milliion…She went to work to run as the Senator from the 9th, she lost the election, but she learned a great deal about the inside of the party, what was wrong with how things were being run, and she has a lot of ideas on what we need to do differently. Yes, message is part of it, but we must listen to the people, in the party across the state to make sure that we gather that wisdom and give them all a seat at the table only way we’re going to win… she believes in empowering those local County chairs, and the local members, the local grassroots people and when I say turn the party upside down, that’s what I’m talking about. I’m talking about saying to the consultants and to the people that are making money off this party whether we win or lose, you guys gotta stand down, and right now we gotta listen to the people who know Wisconsin.”
Although I think the takeover of the day-to-day running of state government goes far beyond Nation Consulting http://www.nationconsulting.com/ , (imho, it starts with the state’s big law firms, (Foley Lardner, Reinhart,…., and accounting firms, then extends to multi-nationals (Hewlett-Packard runs Wisconsin Medicaid and gets a cut of every transaction. IMHO, they offshore all that IT work paid for with Wisconsin taxpayer dollars. “Inside HP’s New $1 Billion Outsourcing Plan” http://www.cio.com/article/2413570/outsourcing/inside-hp-s-new–1-billion-outsourcing-plan.html )).
I applaud Sen. Vinehout for bringing sunlight to Nation Consulting. Perhaps I missed it, but I can’t find Ms. Laning issuing the same warning about Nation Consulting. The appearance to me is that Sen. Vinehout is carrying water for Ms. Laning and she, Sen. Vinehout, will be the defacto DPW-Chair if Ms. Laning is elected. IMHO, Sen. Vinehout’s characterization of Ms. Laning as a “fresh face,” is an admission that she has no/little standing within the party. No one knows knows her, she’s never “networked” on tough issues with the various constituencies that make up DPW.
At a minimum, imho it’s important for Ms. Laning and all the DPW-Chair candidates to take the same, strong, public stance against Nation Consulting that Sen. Vinehout did. Only in extremely rare exceptions imho does state government need to be run by workers living outside of the state of Wisconsin. If we’re going to be sending state paychecks to workers living outside of Wisconsin, and worse, outside of the U.S., the voters need to know that. That also improves accountability. Some IT worker in Bulgaria or China has a lot less incentive to insure that WI Medicaid is administered fairly.
Starting after 19:55, Sen. Vinehout made what I consider a reckless statement, “frankly I was considering running for chair, and if Martha hadn’t have gotten into the race, and if I hadn’t been able to find a candidate that I thought could do this, I would have run for chair.”
The state Senate is the only body where Dems have any chance to block or dilute Gov. Walker/WIGOP/ALEC policies. The mention to the media that any Democratic Senator might consider stepping down strikes me as incredibly irresponsible.
Other parts that may be of interest.
Steve, after 13:00 “ok I respect…, why would Martha be better than Jason Raye?
Sen Vinehout buries Jason Raye and Nation Consulting after 13:15… after 15:00, “he represents the corporatization of the Democratic party. … 17 floors of AT&T lawyers.”
After 15:40, why Ms. Laning’s better than Joe Weineke, who btw, Sen. Vinehout admits she nominated Joe for party chair. “Joe’s had his chance, we need a fresh face.”
After 16:35, why is Ms. Laning better than Jeff Smith After 16:55 “he is extremely negative.”
After 17:35, why is Ms. Laning better than Steve Smith, “not a leader….”
I’ve thought all of this close parsing of her announcement to be over the top. Either you want someone in with her skill-set in terms of organization, fund-raising, and consensus-building or you don’t. Whatever. As for political consultants, it sounds like they’re used to make up for the funding gaps. A few weeks ago, I couldn’t imagine Rae in the Chair. Now I’m not so sure he or Laning don’t bring the right skills for this particular point in time. Here’s a link to ward turnout – you can sort by ethnicity and income (most interesting view of all): http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150407/downtown/chicago-2015-election-live-updates-results-as-rahm-chuy-face-off
Maybe Wisconsin needs a strong fundraising structure and a robust GOTV machine more than ideological purity right now to beat WISGOP. Or maybe we should just all insist on ideological purity and see if that works out. Regardless, it’s been great to watch as so many candidates step up.
Emma, “I’ve thought all of this close parsing of her announcement to be over the top.”
I haven’t seen any, close or otherwise. Do you have a link?
Emma, “Either you want someone in with her skill-set in terms of organization, fund-raising, and consensus-building or you don’t. Whatever.”
Prior to the Stevens Point Meeting, her “good friend,” Sen. Vinehout, didn’t want her. Why is she a “fresh face,” as Sen. Vinehout describes her, to DPW? Aside from running for Senate, why has she never offered her skill set to DPW in the past? She’s never held an elected office in DPW and now she wants the top job.
Emma, “As for political consultants, it sounds like they’re used to make up for the funding gaps.”
Yes, the multi-national corporations, AT&T was the example Sen. Vinehout used, are usually monopolies or oligopolies that buy influence to further restrict competition and improve their net income. They launder some of that through groups like Nation Consulting.
Emma, “A few weeks ago, I couldn’t imagine Rae in the Chair. Now I’m not so sure he or Laning don’t bring the right skills for this particular point in time.
So you disagree with Sen. Vinehout?
Emma, “Here’s a link to ward turnout – you can sort by ethnicity and income (most interesting view of all): http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150407/downtown/chicago-2015-election-live-updates-results-as-rahm-chuy-face-off
Thanks. Really supports the point I’ve been trying to make here for a long time. WIGOP is killing Dems on taxes in general and especially on property taxes. The long hanging fruit, especially for GOTV, is ending the job-killing-state-regulations against marijuana. Use the tax revenue (reportedly 60% of all drug revenue is from pot) from legalization to lower taxes and still fund the UW System, public K-12 education, state, and local government. I would never encourage anyone, who did not already have a serious illness, to use it, but the prohibition against alcohol didn’t work either. “Ted Cruz’s Cannabis Conversion Reflects The Political Prudence Of Marijuana Federalism” http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2015/03/05/by-supporting-marijuana-federalism-republican-candidates-can-be-principled-and-popular/ means he’s joining another GOP Presidential candidate, Rand Paul, in supporting legalization. The issue is very bi-partisan, “Mitch McConnell’s Love Affair with Hemp: How the Kentucky senator picked a fight with the DEA and became one of Washington’s top drug policy reformers.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/mitch-mcconnell-hemp-115671.html#.VSbpWBdIJKp
Legalization will also reduce stress up and down the law enforcement supply chain. Let’s fund schools not PRIVATE prisons, who launder so many of their TAX dollars back to the GOP. Legalization would jump start urban agriculture with a cash crop, which means jobs.
“Silicon Valley Firms Plant Roots in Farm Belt Venture capitalists bet on ‘indoor farming,’ lasers that monitor crops and Soylent drinks”
“…Freight Farms’s repurposed shipping containers, packed with LED lights, sensors and hydroponic systems and producing lettuce and herbs, are appearing in vacant lots and alleys….”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/silicon-valley-firms-plant-roots-in-farm-belt-1428348765?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories
Farming indoors means a 12-month growing season. LED’s only use electricity on wavelengths that the plants actually need. There are a lot more lower-tech options out there. Bright Agrotech does amazing stuff with aquaponics and have recently gotten into hydroponics. http://brightagrotech.com/ From one of the leaders in the foodie movement, Joel Salatin at Polyface farms, “Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal: War Stories from the Local Food Front” http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Want-To-Do-Illegal/dp/0963810952 He makes money selling organic, pasture fed livestock, (cattle, pork, chickens, rabbits) that are always slaughtered humanely.
Emma, “Maybe Wisconsin needs a strong fundraising structure and a robust GOTV machine more than ideological purity right now to beat WISGOP.”
Hard to raise funds or do GOTV, if Dems continue to brand us as GOP-light.
Emma, “Or maybe we should just all insist on ideological purity and see if that works out.”
I think that would be a serious mistake.
Journal Media Group (JMG), that’s the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and a bunch of smaller papers, spun off from Journal Communications is trading north of $8 bucks/share. http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=253960&p=irol-stockQuoteChart
Could the AFL-CIO buy JMG? Not sure the oligarchs would let them, but given how tough it is for labor to get its message out, it seems foolish not to try.
Wisconsin Dems can use the 98-second video of President Reagan praising “collective bargaining,” to force WIGOP to run against Reagan.
“These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland, the values that have inspired other dissidents under communist domination, who have been willing to go into the gulag and suffer the torture of imprisonment, because of their dissidence. They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost. They remind us that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. You and I must protect and preserve freedom here, or it will not be passed on to our children and it will disappear everywhere in the world. Today, the workers in Poland are showing a new generation how high is the price of freedom, but also how much, it is worth that price. I want more than anything I’ve ever wanted, to have an administration that will through its actions, at home and in the international arena, let millions of people know, that Miss Liberty, still lifts her lamp beside the golden door.”
http://bloggingblue.com/2015/03/ronald-reagan-collective-bargaining-freedom-video/#comment-146867
Emma,
Where’s the evidence Laning has strong consensus building skills? Where’s the evidence she’s successfully done political fundraising? Where’s the evidence she’s knowledgeable about robust GOTV efforts? What are you talking about? A former Target exec who raised money to build a community center is somehow qualified to run the DPW? Come out and say it, Emma. You think a woman should be in charge. Just come out and say it. It’s a gender thing with you. It’s okay, Emma, really.
And just so we’re clear here, Emma, as you prepare to come back with one of your well known and thinly veiled smears, I made every effort to get Kelly Westlund to run for DPW Chair because I thought she has the right mix of progressivism, experience, brains and heart for the job, so it might behoove you to come up with a response other than the accusation that I’m an old white guy who doesn’t like women. Just sayin”.
I think female candidates should be treated just the same as their male counterparts. That didn’t happen with Laning on this blog. I definitely think graduate study, corporate leadership experience and large-dollar fund-raising success can be excellent skills to bring to what is essentially a CEO job of the State Party. All kinds of us in our professions report to effective leaders whose strengths don’t always match their top producers. I don’t know whether Laning is the best candidate but I certainly think she’s a great addition to the candidate pool.
Lanhout got the treatment she deserved. No other candidate went along with a sneaky underhanded scheme to utilize party structure to gain an advantage. It’s too bad Lanhout didn’t demonstrate some integrity upfront. Piss poor way to launch her campaign. Piss poor.
Kelly Westlund would have never gone along with a scheme like that. Never. She’s too principled and honest.
Is this a single person, Julie Jansch, a member’s endorsement? Or is it a AFSCME PEOPLE’s endorsement?
I fully support Martha Laning ‘s bid for chairperson of the Democratic Party Of Wisconsin. I am a retired teacher who negotiated for many years under the collective bargaining law that was recently decimated by Governor Walker and almost all Republican legislators. I was in Madison for many of the ACT 10 rallies and constantly lobbied my legislators via face to face contacts and emails about the need for a pragmatic approach to dealing with our state’s fiscal challenges. I always emphasized that this approach should include collaboration, compromises, and solutions that dealt with the concerns on both sides of the issues. That is why I fully supported Martha Laning’s bid for the 9th Senate District seat in 2012. I knocked on over 1500 doors during her campaign and even though she may have lost by 20 points, she did make significant inroads into this overwhelming Republican district that was won by 47 points in the previous 2010 election! I’ve had many personal conversations with Martha along with listening and reading her many comments about where she stands on worker rights and collective bargaining. She strongly believes in bringing people together to work out solutions to problems and concerns. That is the main ingredient of collective bargaining! It would serve us all well to have Martha Laning as the chair of the DPW and hopefully someday as a leader in Wisconsin government!!!
John wrote: “I fully support Martha Laning ‘s bid for chairperson of the Democratic Party Of Wisconsin. I am a retired teacher who negotiated for many years under the collective bargaining law that was recently decimated by Governor Walker and almost all Republican legislators. I was in Madison for many of the ACT 10 rallies and constantly lobbied my legislators via face to face contacts and emails about the need for a pragmatic approach to dealing with our state’s fiscal challenges. I always emphasized that this approach should include collaboration, compromises, and solutions that dealt with the concerns on both sides of the issues.”
Gov. Walker wants to turn over your pension to Wall Street. Most likely it will be to billionaire David Einhorn, “Einhorns’ contribution to Walker could trigger ‘pay-to-play’ rule.”
“…Along with the similarly named fund created for the WHEDA investment, Capital Midwest manages the $40 million Capital Midwest Fund II. That larger fund received $15 million of its capital from David Einhorn, according to a recent New York Times article. David Einhorn, Stephen’s son, is a well-known New York hedge fund manager who is known for his ability to move markets when his Greenlight Capital bets against a stock. He was ranked 41st on Fortune’s list of the most important businesspeople in the U.S. in 2012, and in February was ordered to pay an $11 million fine for insider trading. …”
http://www.jsonline.com/business/einhorns-contribution-to-walker-could-trigger-paytoplay-rule-t57t0k7-182683161.html
You don’t see that phony liberal, Chuck Schumer, (who btw will replace Harry Reid as Minority Leader) protecting unions against his buddies on Wall Street.
“Wall Street Fees Wipe Out $2.5 Billion in New York City Pension Gains”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/nyregion/wall-street-fees-wipe-out-2-5-billion-in-new-york-city-pension-gains.html?_r=0
What “compromises” did you see as fair? Please be specific.
John wrote: “That is why I fully supported Martha Laning’s bid for the 9th Senate District seat in 2012.” I knocked on over 1500 doors during her campaign and even though she may have lost by 20 points, she did make significant inroads into this overwhelming Republican district that was won by 47 points in the previous 2010 election!”
Pretty sure Ms. Laning ran in 2014.
John wrote: “I’ve had many personal conversations with Martha along with listening and reading her many comments about where she stands on worker rights and collective bargaining. She strongly believes in bringing people together to work out solutions to problems and concerns. That is the main ingredient of collective bargaining! It would serve us all well to have Martha Laning as the chair of the DPW and hopefully someday as a leader in Wisconsin government!!!”
DPW-Chair is not on-the-job training. DPW needs a chair who brings plans and policies that will win. That starts on day one with media traction. That means knocking Scott Walker and the Republicans off the front-page of the Wisconsin dailies. Democrats have to drive the media narrative about income inequality and the 99%.
Based on your “many” conversations, please state what concrete actions Ms. Laning plans to take to get the income inequality message out into the main-stream media. What’s her plan on state and local taxes? Will she get quoted in news stories? JS’ Politifact is a powerful tool, will DPW communications team have researchers to keep feeding them with facts, figures that support Dem positions? Will Ms. Laning be a guest on radio? Will she take on wingnut radio, Sykes, Belling,….?
Since no one can or wants to answer my question regarding her endorsement, let’s take a step back in time.
https://progressivemidwesterner.wordpress.com/2015/03/14/purported-democratic-party-of-wisconsin-chairperson-candidate-martha-laning-ran-ad-praising-republicans-during-failed-state-senate-campaign/
It’s pretty clear from the press release on Laning’s site that the endorsement is from AFSCME PEOPLE as a whole, not just one member.
Mase, I’d love for all my concerns about Ms. Laning to be wrong, but after so many experiences with Dem’s “bait and switch” (giving money to the “new/liberal/progressive” Dem, who will unseat the DINO (Democrat In Name Only) , but then when they take office, they suddenly revert to the old DINO and become Republican-lite), I’m a little more skeptical. And the AFSCME endorsement carries very little weight with me. I’ve seen unions cave again and again.
Before Obamacare passed, we (Jane Hamsher’s Firedoglake) told everyone who would listen that the public option (allow folks to buy Medicare coverage), was the only way to prevent the health insurance oligopoly from using the IRS to FORCE Americans to buy LOUSY coverage. That’s why Republicans are so upset about Obamacare and they’re right about the employer employee mandates. Regardless of what the Supreme Court, said, both mandates are unconstitutional. The “public option” would have killed three birds with one stone. (1 and 2) It would have provided the health insurance oligopoly with real competition in the market place, and eliminated the need for either an employer or employee mandate. But, since the health insurance oligopoly wrote Obamacare, it was tailored to boost their net income, which is exactly what it did. (3) The “public option,” would have meant real competition (the decent coverage that Medicare provides) for the health insurance oligopoly. If they didn’t offer a competitive product, more people would have purchased Medicare. Thanks to Democrats, the public option was ripped out of Obamacare, but Obama had to write an Executive Order to give away abortion rights to buy votes from anti-choice Dem, Bart Stupak in the House.
“Stupak Abortion Language to Be Substituted for Senate Language in Deal to Secure Health Care Votes”
“…It is outrageous that a Democratic Speaker, a Democratic Majority Leader and a Democratic President should support rolling back women’s reproductive rights,” says one member of the group.
Alan Grayson, who voted against the Stupak Amendment when it went before the House last October, now has 80 cosponsors for his public option amendment, but has not been granted a floor vote….
“I wonder why we can have a vote to please the anti-choice clique, and we can’t have a vote on the public option,” he says.
http://firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/stupak-abortion-language-to-be-substituted-for-senate-language-in-deal-to-secure-health-care-votes/
All those so-called liberals in the House, in super-safe Dem districts, I’m looking at you Sen. Baldwin, when you were in the House representing Madison, caved twice. First, they let Stupak gash abortion rights. Then they let the health insurance oligopoly trash the public option, so they could continue as the parasite they are on the entire health care system.
Here’s what I wrote: “IMHO, Sen. Vinehout’s characterization of Ms. Laning as a “fresh face,” is an admission that she has no/little standing within the party.”
IMHO = In my humble opinion.
My guess is that, precisely because Ms. Laning has no history with DPW, Sec. Clinton’s advance team in Wisconsin reached out to Sen. Vinehout to back Laning. They have lots to offer, either backing the Senator for a run for Governor in 2018, or giving her a job in D.C. when Sec. Clinton wins.
I would invite you to consider that Ms. Laning doesn’t even mention the anti-Nation Consulting talking points in her written statement about why she’s fit for the job, the identical talking points Sen. Vinehout enunciated so clearly in her interview with Steve Walters. That’s another red-flag for me that if she’s elected, Ms. Laning will be as good a follower of Nation Consulting and all the other corporate overlords as her predecessors. I’d love to be wrong, but experience has taught me that the monopolies and oligopolies always get what they want.
” I definitely think graduate study, corporate leadership experience and large-dollar fund-raising success can be excellent skills to bring to what is essentially a CEO job of the State Party.”
No. Sounds like realpolitik. aka More of the same.
Martha is very likable. I wish her well. But the corporate speak and campaign roll out shenanigans raise red fllags.
Actually, both Tate and Wineke hold undergrad degrees in political science, spent the bulk of their careers thus far in politics and neither worked in the Fortune 500. Vinehout’s description of Laning as a fresh face seems more apt than characterizing her as more of the same.
Lanhout lacks integrity and, consequently, has no business running for Chair of the DPW. Period.
Just because Vinehout is backing Laning doesn’t mean Vinehout is going to be the “defacto DPW chair” as some of you are implying. It sounds like a real reach looking for some kind of conspiracy here.
MaseMan,
Not a real reach at all. Vinehout basically admits as much in her WisEye interview and the chronology of events says the rest. Imagine this for a minute: Mike Tate organizes a Democratic Forum in Stevens Point to discuss the future of the party. A relative newcomer hand picked by Tate moderates the event and Tate prohibits announced DPW Chair candidates from campaigning. A couple of weeks later the hand picked moderator announces his/her candidacy for Chair at the County Chairs Association meeting. What would be happening on this blog? We’d be screaming ” foul ” at the top of our lungs and demanding Tate’s head. But it’s okay because Vinehout and Laning did it? Bullshit. Integrity and transparency are progressive values. Neither of these were in play in this scenario.
Steve, I don’t know about Laning personally, but I disagree strongly with you on your suggestion regarding Senator Vinehout’s “integrity and transparency” based upon my long association and following of her political career.
I believe you should have least questioned her “actions” one on one.
Com’n!
Duane,
I understand that it’s difficult for Vinehout’s fans to embrace the idea that she would do anything underhanded but the evidence speaks for itself. In my view she admits as much in her WisEye interview endorsing Laning. We don’t indulge in any hero worship in our household, and the tendency to do so amongst left leaning people is a problem. They all have their warts and Vinehout’s are really showing in this episode, as are Laning’s. It really is a shame they didn’t do all this above board, but that’s not my fault.
Steve, I suggest again you go to Senator Vinehout directly or “one on one”, rather than air your charges of her wrongdoing here.
We have to unite rather than employ a “divide and conquer” tactic with our Democratic brothers and sisters who do not see things as you or I do.
Let there be differences in opinion or tactics; in the end we will be a better party for it. We cannot become or have a division such as the GOP has with their Tea Party element.
If you are ever in my neighborhood of Jackson County, feel free to drop in announced. I admire you, but do not always agree with you.
All the rhetoric and the out of context quotes aside, Martha Laning is an excellent candidate for DPW Chair! She brings a Democratic passion to the office with a skill set that meets the demands of the position. A strong education advocate, her support for teachers and other public employees is beyond question. She supports public and private unions right to bargain and opposes right to work.
Her financial background is just the type of thing we need in a leadership position when money plays the important role it does in electing people in the post Citizen’s United dark ages that we must struggle through in movement toward a constiutional amendment.
Another of Martha’s strong points is the ability to manage effectively, working with others to produce results. Management skills to strengthen where we are strong and improve areas that may require tweaking to be more efficient.
Get to know the candidate and be convinced.
Bob,
Thanks for weighing in. Are you the Treasurer of the Manitowoc County Dems, http://mantydems.com/whos-who.html , or someone pretending to be him?
1. You wrote: “All the rhetoric and the out of context quotes aside,”
Please list the five most unhelpful examples of “rhetoric” and “out-of-context quotes,” each, that you found in this thread.
2. You wrote: “Martha Laning is an excellent candidate for DPW Chair!”
It’s unclear from that whether you think she’s the “best” candidate.
3. You wrote: “She brings a Democratic passion to the office”
FWIW, I consider that “rhetoric.” https://www.google.com/search?q=rhetoric&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
When did Ms. Laning start as a dues-paying member of DPW? What’s her voting record? How she voted isn’t any of our business, but whether or not she voted is public record.
4. You wrote: “with a skill set that meets the demands of the position.”
If her skill set’s such a good fit, why has she never held any previous position within the party? What message does it send to county chairs, other party members and office holders if their experience is dwarfed by an MBA who worked for Target, who is a “fresh face,” aka “rookie?” Dems don’t have time for a chair who doesn’t intimately understand how the party machinery works, and I so far see nothing in Ms. Laning’s background that suggests she does.
Will an editor at any of the big state dailies take her call? Will she get on wingnut radio and rebut questions from nasty, mean, and really smart guys like Sykes and Belling? If not her, who does she have planned for that job? Has she ever run a direct-mail operation? That’s a huge component of fund raising. Aside from her Senate campaign, has she ever made an “ad-buy” for anything? Aside from her Senate campaign, does she have any experience with an integrated marketing campaign, outdoor, TV, radio, print, social media. Is she on Twitter or Facebook? If so, are there any past Tweets, FB comments that could embarrass DPW? If she’s elected, you know GOP will go over those with a “fine tooth comb,” aka seasoned, well compensated opposition researchers. If she’s not on Twitter or FB, why not? Social media’s a part of the media landscape and the new DPW Chair has to be fluent in it.
5. You wrote: “A strong education advocate,”
How does she plan to pay for it? What’s the plan? Republicans are killing Dems on taxes in general and property taxes in particular.
6. You wrote: “her support for teachers and other public employees is beyond question.”
See my questions above.
7. She supports public and private unions right to bargain
No one, not even Scott Walker opposes it. What the right-to-freeload law did was make it impossible for a majority rules vote to compel dues paying. What’s Ms. Laning’s plan for overturning right-to-freeload?
8. You wrote: and opposes right to work.
Did she ever mention that opposition in her run for State Senate? Is it in any of her campaign literature?
9. Her financial background is just the type of thing we need in a leadership position when money plays the important role it does in electing people in the post Citizen’s United dark ages that we must struggle through in movement toward a constiutional amendment.
AFAIK, corporate finance, her background, is a long ways away from election finance/law. Good finance people tend to be introverts. People who can raise money, you didn’t mention that, but others have, tend to be more extroverted. Given her rookie status within the party, her Target background, and the whole Stevens Point theater, my fears are that she’s a “Trojan Horse,” being positioned (by Sec. Clinton’s campaign for POTUS) to ensure DPW remains chained to the corporate control that Sen. Vinehout so rightly criticized. If she had a track record WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, my fears on this wouldn’t be so great.
10. You wrote: Another of Martha’s strong points is the ability to manage effectively,
IMHO, that’s more “rhetoric,” https://www.google.com/search?q=rhetoric&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 .
According to who? Target?
Have you ever worked for her? Do you know anyone who has?
11. You wrote, “working with others to produce results.”
IMHO, that’s more “rhetoric,” https://www.google.com/search?q=rhetoric&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 .
According to who? Target?
Yes, the community center is an accomplishment, I’ll take her word on that. Is there anything else? Is there anything within DPW?
12. You wrote, “Management skills to strengthen where we are strong and improve areas that may require tweaking to be more efficient.”
IMHO, that’s more “rhetoric,” https://www.google.com/search?q=rhetoric&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 .
DPW Chair job 1 imho: Break the strangle hold that wingnut radio Sykes, Belling… has over much of Wisconsin and get the Dem/capitalist message out about income inequality and prosperity, the real “job creators,” are consumer with money to spend.
“Report: Wisconsin worst in nation on shrinking middle class”
http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/report-wisconsin-worst-in-nation-on-shrinking-middle-class/article_f802788b-2405-5e5f-9fe3-522939779911.html
Would the AFL-CIO consider buying Journal Media Group? That’s the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the smaller newspapers that Journal Communications didn’t want because radio makes more money. It can deliver podcasts, which aren’t as good as radio in a vehicle, but it’s better than nothing? Big labor needs a voice and with their Pulitzer’s the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel could be it.
DPW Chair job 2 imho: work with Senate Republicans to block as much of the Walker budget as possible.
DPW Chair job 3 imho: at the same time, in 2016 take back the state Senate, make significant gains in the Assembly, and replace RoJo with Feingold.
DPW Chair job 4 imho, reinstate salaries of Milwaukee County Supervisors, because that was a key testing area for young Democratic talent coming up throught the ranks.
13. You wrote, “Get to know the candidate and be convinced.”
Why isn’t the candidate, Ms. Laning, responding directly in this thread?
She can set up a time with any blog for a chat and follow your advice.
I’m a big-tent guy, I’ll support whoever the party elects, but I sent Jeff Smith $50. IMHO, he’s the best chance at someone who will make the tough decisions that are ahead. Unfortunately, I see lots of politically astute young people running away from the Democratic party for the Socialist Party and Green Party. Worse, I see lots of older folks who see no difference between Dems and the GOP.
I know both Bob and Martha.
I campaigned for Martha in the Senate race. This does not necessarily translate to support for her as a state chair.
Though I think she is an asset to the party her race fell far short of what I would have wanted it to be.
I consider Bob to be a friend but maybe not after I say what I have to say about him.
Bob was also Martha’s campaign treasurer.
As County Treasurer he was responsible for determining qualifications to vote and sit on the the executive committee by governing memberships. As such he failed to disqualify a NON MEMBER to sit on the executive committee even as he actively campaigned for a RTW Republican against a paid Dem member for City council.
That non member also verbally attacked me in a committee meeting for writing about that candidate’s labor woes involving the wrongful death suit of an illegal immigrant who was killed on his construction work site. Despite all that Jome did NOTHING and even participated in a political move to have me removed from the committee because of my blogs about a DINO Democrat, Jim Brey.
Jome also wrote a very similar letter to the editor supporting Brey which was little more than an act of pure fiction depicting Brey as a moderate even though he opposed the recall, supported Act 10. Opposed marriage equality and even the clean water act…
As a result I believe that Bob has absolutely NO credibility in evaluating candidates or even performing his duties at county treasurer.
One of my outrages about Tate (as well as Barca) is that when I complained about Jome and then chairmain Kerry Trask for these infractions they blew me off.
Ive made these issues known to Martha a couple of times but she has failed to distance herself from Jome and the Manitowoc committee.
While I do not intend to imply that Martha is anything like Jim Brey her failure to recognize the dysfunction of the party and the need to purge the bad actors from is has been a major disappointment in considering her for state chair.
Sorry Bob, but you really have this coming!
You should resign your post.
Here are links to the relevant blogs and letters:
http://manitowocmegaphone.blogspot.com/2014/06/welcome-to-dystop-acratic-party-part-iii_18.html
http://manitowocmegaphone.blogspot.com/2013/02/villains-scapegoats-and-hypocrites-when.html
http://manitowocprogressives.org/?cat=3
http://manitowocmegaphone.blogspot.com/2015/03/fifty-shades-of-brey.html
Bernie- Thanks for that eye opener.
Duane,
During her WisEye interview Vinehout publicly attacked the DPW Chair candidate I’m backing, Jeff Smith, with a completely unjustifiable statement that he ” hurt her ” during last years campaign. She made that statement without a shred of evidence to back it up. In fact, Jeff has the numbers to show that of the 11 Assembly seats targeted by the ADCC last fall Jeff did better than any of the others, and with absolutely no help from the ADCC. Vinehout’s attack on Jeff was petty, mean spirited and totally uncalled for.
With all due respect, Duane, you need to go to Vinehout directly, or one on one, and ask her why she would publicly make such a destructive and divisive statement.
I live in Sheboygan and am the Treasurer of the Sheboygan County Dem Party. I know Martha personally and volunteered for her campaign for State Senate this past election cycle. This current administration has gone to great lengths to cut the Dem party off at the knees, Act 10 to voter ID. Martha is speaking all over WI. Please attend one of her engagements and hear for yourself, ask questions. I personally think Martha is a great choice for leading the WI Democratic party into the future. She has some great ideas and incredible tenacity .We need to stop the division amongst ourselves. Obviously, what has been done at the state level, has not worked. We have lost too many important races, starting with Russ Feingold and ending with 2014, Walker’s re-election. I believe Martha’s comments have been taken out of text. She said that the way ACT 10 was enacted was wrong. That the Administration should have worked WITH the School Administration AND the employee Unions to work out something that would help to reduce costs yet still maintain everyones rights and dignity. Here is a link to her website. Please educate yourselves and stay informed. http://www.laningforwisconsin.com/
Ms. Stoleb, thanks for posting and identifying yourself.
1. You wrote: “I live in Sheboygan and am the Treasurer of the Sheboygan County Dem Party. I know Martha personally and volunteered for her campaign for State Senate this past election cycle.”
1.1 Since you know her, can you explain why she waited until AFTER moderating the Stevens Point meeting to announce her candidacy?
1.2 How long has she been a registered Democrat?
1.3 How long has she been a dues-paying member of DPW?
Because, Sen Vinehout described her as a “fresh face,” which imho means she’s a rookie within the Democratic party, the optics of her moderating the Stevens Point meeting raise serious questions. The appearance is that Sen. Vinehout and other “major DPW players,” wanted to see how she handled herself. If she did well, it was that exposure that would catapult her campaign for Chair. If you’ve listened to the beginning of Sen. Vinehout’s conversation with Steve Walters, she’s a friend of Ms. Laning too, but she didn’t decide to back her for Chair until AFTER the Stevens Point meeting.
2. You wrote: “This current administration has gone to great lengths to cut the Dem party off at the knees, Act 10 to voter ID. Martha is speaking all over WI. Please attend one of her engagements and hear for yourself, ask questions. I personally think Martha is a great choice for leading the WI Democratic party into the future. She has some great ideas and incredible tenacity.”
What are these “great ideas?”
If she’s so “tenacious,” why is she letting all you “water carriers,” carry her bland “new idea,” message? Since she has zero track record prior to her run for Senate, all we have are her “claims,” of “new ideas.” Worse, once she’s elected, she could just flip-flop like Scott Walker did on right-to-freeload. In endorsing Ms. Laning, Sen. Vinehout ripped Nation Consulting and corporate takeover of the DPW.
2.1 Does Ms. Laning concur?
If so, let’s hear/read it directly from her.
3. You wrote, “We need to stop the division amongst ourselves.”
Please list the top five divisions you see in DPW. Please be as specific as you can.
4. You wrote, “Obviously, what has been done at the state level, has not worked. We have lost too many important races, starting with Russ Feingold and ending with 2014, Walker’s re-election. I believe Martha’s comments have been taken out of text. She said that the way ACT 10 was enacted was wrong. That the Administration should have worked WITH the School Administration AND the employee Unions to work out something that would help to reduce costs yet still maintain everyones rights and dignity. Here is a link to her website. Please educate yourselves and stay informed.”
I have no doubt that Ms. Laning has skills that could benefit DPW. Since she’s never held an elected position within the party, it’s unclear to me, why she thinks she’s earned a shot at the Chair? With each additional “water carrier” who chimes in, it’s abundantly clear that she has very robust support within the party. Who could that be? My first guess is Sec. Clinton’s campaign. They don’t want a DPW Chair diluting any resources from a critical battleground state, Wisconsin. All Sec. Clinton’s campaign understandably wants is an easy path to the nomination and Wisconsin’s ten-electoral votes. I certainly hope I’m wrong about that, but I’m concerned that they think Ms. Laning (with their backing) can deliver. But if the Clinton campaign is running the DPW, why have the charade of a Chair or a DPW?
Please note that afaik, Sec. Clinton has been silent on protecting Social Security. Please note, afaik, she’s with other corporate Dems and fiscal illiterates on a “balanced,” federal budget.
“Demand Leakages: The 800lb Economist in the Room”
“I can’t say I’ve seen anyone in the deficit debates talking about the demand leakages. Not a mention in the mainstream press, financial news media, or any of the thousands of economic reports? That’s like discussing the right horsepower for a truck or an airplane without any consideration of the weight of the vehicle.
Demand leakages are unspent income. For a given currency, if any agent doesn’t spend his income, some other agent has to spend more than his income, or that much output doesn’t get sold. So if the non government sectors collectively don’t spend all of their income, it’s up to government to make sure its income is less than its spending, or that much output doesn’t get sold. This translates into what’s commonly called the ‘output gap,’ which is largely a sanitized way of saying unemployment.
And with the private sector necessarily pro cyclical, the (whopping) private sector spending gap in this economy can only be filled with by government via either a (whopping) tax cut and/or spending increase (depending on one’s politics).
So wherefore the ‘demand leakages?’ The lion’s share are due to tax advantages for not spending your income, including pension contributions, IRA’s and all kinds of corporate reserves. Then there’s foreign hoards accumulated to support foreign exporters. And it all should be a very good thing — all of that net unspent income means that for a given size government, and a given non government rate of credit expansion, our taxes can be that much lower. Personally, I’d rather have a tax cut than a policy to get other people to spend their unspent income or borrow more. But that’s just me…”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-mosler/demand-leakages-the-800lb_b_1646916.html
Unlike the federal budget, state and local budgets have to “balance.” At the federal level, what has to “balance,” are the three economic sectors, private (domestic), foreign, and public.
“Beware Of Politicians Bearing Household Analogies”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevekeen/2015/01/14/beware-of-politicians-bearing-household-analogies-3/
Since you’re friends with her, please tell Ms. Laning that imho Nation Consulting, Foley Lardner, Reinhart Law, Deloitte, and other big law and accounting firms run the day-to-day operations of state government. IMHO they interface with multi-nationals, such as Hewlett Packard, who run Wisconsin Medicaid with imho off-shore IT resources, “HP today shared details on six countries that will become its global delivery hubs for enterprise services. In this Q&A, CIO.com gets the lowdown on where jobs are being added and eliminated, lock-in concerns and the future of HP services.”
http://www.cio.com/article/2413570/outsourcing/inside-hp-s-new–1-billion-outsourcing-plan.html
AFAIK, HP is still the “fiscal agent,” for Wisconsin Medicaid. That means in addition to getting big bucks from Wisconsin taxpayers to update THEIR proprietary, off-the-shelf software, which they sell to plenty of other states, they also get a cut of every transaction. That means HP and their off shore IT folks have ZERO incentive for early fraud detection. The more transactions, the more money they make.
IMHO, the big law and accounting firms tell the legislature, the AG, and the Governor what legislation they need to rip off more from the state taxpayers. IMHO without a lot of veteran, well-compensated, smart, savvy, state workers who really understand the legal(both state and federal law), financial/accounting, IT issues, our elected state officials are mostly concerned with keeping the wheels from falling off. IMHO Wisconsin, via local law and accounting firms, have off-shored the state’s expertise in most sectors of state government.
IMHO, after the fact that the corporations control the media and we can’t get our message out (want to hear her “great ideas” on that) the next massive divide is over taxes, and especially property taxes. At the local and state level, legalizing pot would piss off the law enforcement unions, state correctional officers unions. Milwaukee Police Association always votes Republican and endorses GOP anyway, I know I’m in the minority here, but I think that’s manageable. At the national level, Big Pharma opposes it, because they think they lose a lot of revenue if marijuana were legal. IMHO, that’s driving Sec. Clinton’s campaign on this issue. Because another GOP presidential candidate supports it, “Ted Cruz’s Cannabis Conversion Reflects The Political Prudence Of Marijuana Federalism”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2015/03/05/by-supporting-marijuana-federalism-republican-candidates-can-be-principled-and-popular/
along with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), I still think legalization’s a winning issue for Dems in 2016 in state and federal elections, because done right, it could bring in lots of tax revenue and drive our GOTV efforts. The hope is by 2018, we’ll have more data on what a failure all the privatization schemes have been in education, other areas, but that requires a media that isn’t corporate controlled. In no way am I encouraging anyone, who does not already have a serious illness to use it, but the prohibition of alcohol didn’t work either. I think legalization would jump start urban agriculture jobs in Wisconsin by giving farmers a cash crop. And then there’s hemp, “Mitch McConnell’s Love Affair with Hemp: How the Kentucky senator picked a fight with the DEA and became one of Washington’s top drug policy reformers.” http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/mitch-mcconnell-hemp-115671.html#.VSqVeBdIJKp
My reading of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is that they (both their Newsroom and Editorial board) would cover pot legalization, because they see it supporting their subscriber base and their advertising revenue. If that’s accurate, legalization, is really a key 2016 issue in Wisconsin, because unlike right-to-freeload, and public sector worker compensation, and collective bargaining…., the corporate media can’t entirely knock Dem messaging out.
John aks Mary Jo, “What are these “great ideas?”
Feb. 9, 2015
http://bloggingblue.com/2015/02/ten-questions-from-blogging-blue-readers-to-dpw-chair-candidate-jeff-smith/
Six weeks later… Six weeks.
March 24, 2015
http://bloggingblue.com/2015/03/ten-questions-from-blogging-blue-readers-to-dpw-chair-candidate-martha-laning/
Compare.
Not just Martha and her ideas, but have you noticed how Joe Wineke and Jason Rae’s vision for the party have morphed over time? Obviously Jeff Smith has some pretty good ideas if they’ve incorporated his vision and folded them in as their own.
And of course, there’s this.: http://bloggingblue.com/2015/03/who-or-what-is-really-behind-martha-lanings-purported-run-for-dpw-chair/
And this.: http://bloggingblue.com/2015/03/curiouser-and-curiouser/