Feeling the heat from federal, Dane County, and attorney general investigations slowly but surely uncovering the sleazy nature of the guv's fundraising efforts, Jim the New Democrat Doyle today got behind campaign reform efforts he claimed to be “the most comprehensive ethics reform package to be introduced in Wisconsin in more than three decades." Senator Mike Ellis immediately debunked Doyle's campaign season smokescreen, saying accurately that “The only reason Governor Doyle is now coming out in support of even this tepid reform package is so that he can cover his butt now that he’s under the microscope for alleged ethical lapses. ”
Ellis went further:
"Suddenly, in an election year, when he is being investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the state Justice Department, the governor gets religion and starts to pose for holy pictures. Give me a break.”
Sounds like Mike Ellis might be ready to give Ed Thompson a call.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Ellis: no one is more to blame for the death of campaign finance reform in Wisconsin than Governor Jim Doyle
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Governor Doyle has said he would sign Ellis's campaign finance reform bill from Day 1. The state Republican Party is the reason the bill has not passed to this day. Perhaps Senator Ellis should ask himself why he is not more effective in getting his colleagues on board. Sounds like sour grapes from an ineffective Republican past his prime.
Doyle's fundraising actions do not pass the smell test, but those who view Ellis as some sort of savior or alternative, better be willing to accept his support for cuts to the Medicaid program, K-12 education, the universities, and an end to collective bargaining. I personally, will support maintaining funding for these programs and hold my nose.
Dear Anonymous,
I disagree with you vehemently on Doyle and campaign finance reform, but let's put that aside for now.
Your post sounds like a classic formulation of the "lesser evil" approach to voting. You are going to "hold your nose" and vote for someone whose "fundraising actions do not pass the smell test," because the other guys are worse.
But let me ask you a question. Suppose there was a candidate in the race who pledged not only to maintain, but to improve the programs that you care about. And suppose this candidate also was not beholden to any monied interests. In fact, let's just say that you agree with this hypothetical candidate on every issue--but he is not a Democrat or a Republican.
Would you vote for the hypothetical candidate? Or would you be afraid that a vote for him would "spoil" it for the guy you are already holding your nose for? --Tony
What sort of experience with coalition building, budgeting, executive leadership and government would this person have?
Or would this candidate just be an inexperienced talker?
Assume for the sake of argument he has all the experience you desire in a candidate and then some (although the only experience the constitution requires is age and citizenship).
The only difference between him and the other candidates is that he chooses not to run as a Democrat or Republican. What will you do?
Anonymous Commenter 1: It is not money for the sake of money that is necessary to run a campaign to win. It is money to raise awareness for a candidate who may not have the name recognition to compete. I thought Sen. Ellis analysis of what it would take to win resource-wise was pretty accurate given how late he would be enterting the race and his lack of name recognition statewide. Remember, the other candidates have been criss-crossing the state for more than a year now - meeting with people and building support. We know him, because we pay attention, but most people do not. There are only a few people who could actually run for Governor with a shot at winning.
Tommy Thompson. Russ Feingold. Herb Kohl. Brett Farve. Jim Doyle, Mark Green, Scott Walker.
They all have name recognition or are building the apparatus to get their name out.
Back to Tony's question on whether I would support a preferable candidate issue and ethics wise who was not a Dem or GOP candidate.
1) Yes, I have no problem voting for an independent and have voted for both Dems and Republicans before. The right candidate could win.
2) Does this independent candidate have the name recognition and resources to effectively compete, given my initial discussion?
Jesse Ventura captured this in 1998 pulling equally from Dems, GOPs, and independents. But he had huge name recognition and proved all pollsters wrong because first time voters overwhelmingly came out to vote for him.
Unfortunately he was a huge failure as a Governor. The Legislature ignored him, overrode his decisions and he lost interest quickly and failed in most of his campaign initatives (light rail being a HUGE exception).
I would want to know which issues our hypothetical independent candidate would compromise on with the GOP.
3)We have divided government now. The decisions of the last four years are the result of a GOP dominated legislature and a Dem governor. Policies are the result of compromise and fall somewhere in the middle of where each party stands (like Clinton's second term). Doyle has been there to protect collective bargaining rights, Medicaid, patient rights, and was the only sitting Governor in the US to veto the gay marraige ban.
I would have a huge fear if the GOP won the Governorship. If my decision to support an independent would make it more likely that a Republican would become Governor, than no. I will support Doyle, smelly fundraising and all. Outside of the smelly fundraising, given the fact that we have divided government, I do not think Doyle has done a bad job, and so does not fall under lesser evil.
It does not make me any less pure. Everyone has to make rational decisions with their votes including taking into account name recognition and likely outcomes. Not doing so has serious consequences. The most rational and informed voters understand the consequences and factor all of these things together in making their decision.
I agreed with most things that Ralph Nader said in 2000, but voted for Al Gore (who I agreed with on many things), because he had the best chance to win and I feared if Bush won he would start a war in Iraq. Again, we need to factor the consequences.
Post a Comment