Wisconsin: A Green State

I supported Scott Walker to be the next governor of Wisconsin.

His announcement to withdraw from the race was a shock.

He hadn't been acting like he was ready to step aside. The Walker Weekly came on schedule. I didn't see this coming, certainly not at this time.

Without question, I regret that Walker won't be taking Doyle's job in November.

Nevertheless, there is some relief in knowing that money and energy and emotion will not be spent on intra-party battles during primary season.

Friday night, at a Republican event in Waukesha, Walker, in effect, coronated Mark Green to be Jim Doyle's Republican challenger.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Greg Borowski provides analysis of the pros and cons of Walker's departure for both Republicans and Democrats.

Some interesting figures from the article:

Walker and Green combined raised more than Doyle in the second half of 2005 - $1.3 million to about $1.1 million. But their close contest was keeping other money on the sidelines.

"There were a lot of Republican donors who were giving a little bit to both candidates, and even more that were sitting this out completely," said Brian Fraley, a GOP strategist and president of The Markesan Group. "This will free up those who want to give the eventual winner money to give to Green right now."

It all boils down to money, coming up with the cash.

Now, with Walker out, all Republican dollars will be sent Green's way. That's a good thing. Even Dem spinmeisters have to acknowledge that.

Regarding the elimination of a primary race, I see that as another positive. Although some believe that a competitive primary is helpful because it gives the eventual winner more visibility, I don't think that theory holds up. Any benefits in terms of name and face recognition for the candidate are minimal compared to the damage done by a bloody primary.

Borowski notes, "Wisconsin's primary election is one of the latest in the nation, leaving little time for a winning primary candidate to shift aim toward the incumbent - and to reach out to swing voters.

"'You end up spending all the time, except the last six to seven weeks, running against each other,' said former Republican Lt. Gov. Margaret Farrow, a Green backer who had urged Walker to consider leaving the race."

That primary dynamic, something that would have been a plus for incumbent Doyle, has been erased. Republicans will be able to better utilize their financial resources, unify the party, and reach out to swing voters now that a contentious primary has been avoided.

On Friday, Walker said, "A campaign that does not focus on Doyle before the primary will almost certainly insure his re-election. To me, that outcome is unacceptable."

That outcome is unacceptable to me, too.

Walker comes off as a winner by bowing out now, putting the good of the state ahead of his personal goals. That's admirable. I'm sure it was a difficult and painful decision, but it was the right one.

On Friday, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin reacted to Walker's withdrawal with this statement from Party Chairman Joe Wineke:

(Excerpts)

The good news for Wisconsin voters is that Scott Walker is out of the race; the bad news is that extreme Mark Green is still in it. Make no mistake, Scott Walker would have been the wrong choice for Wisconsin’s next Governor. But it is hard to recall a candidate as vulnerable and ill-suited to serve as Mark Green.

Mark Green was at the center of the caucus scandal, has deep ties to convicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff and indicted Republican insider Tom Delay, and is saddled with an extensive extremist record far outside the Wisconsin mainstream. Green has proven to be a rubberstamp for the failed policies of President Bush and Republicans in Congress, and has shown that he stands for Washington values, not the values of the people of Wisconsin.

It’s no coincidence that Walker’s announcement comes one day after one of President Bush’s top lieutenants, Ken Mehlman, visited Wisconsin. It’s clear that the long arm of the White House is at work here, and that George Bush has handpicked one of his most reliable allies in Congress to rubberstamp his agenda in Wisconsin.

Do Wisconsin voters really want a Governor chosen by George W. Bush?

What I find amazing about this statement is that in a few short paragraphs all the loony bases of the Bush-hating Left are covered.

It's clear to me that the Dems want Doyle to run against Bush, not Green. They believe they can tap into their rabid, "Bush lied, people died" base.

"It’s clear that the long arm of the White House is at work here, and that George Bush has handpicked one of his most reliable allies in Congress to rubberstamp his agenda in Wisconsin."

That sounds so sinister. Jack Abramoff. Tom DeLay. Ooooh, scary!

I'm surprised the Dems left out the threat that Dick Cheney and a loaded gun pose to Wisconsin.

"The long arm of the White House" -- HAHAHAHA!

That statement is absolutely ridiculous. It's an embarrassment.

What makes it NOT so funny is the fact that there are a lot of Dems in the state that are eager to buy into this.

Bush isn't running again. The Dems can't vote against the criminal Bush, so the DPW is offering Green up as an opportunity for them to make an anti-Bush statement.

Does the DPW understand that Bush will not be the Republican nominee in Wisconsin's gubernatorial race? It doesn't sound like it.

Does the DPW think that Doyle can win re-election on anti-Bush sentiment alone? That certainly doesn't say much for Doyle, an incumbent who should be able to run on all that he's accomplished for Wisconsin.

That brings up the big question: What has Doyle accomplished?

Obviously, there's not a lot to work with, so the DPW asks, "Do Wisconsin voters really want a Governor chosen by George W. Bush?"

I'll answer that with some questions. None involve Bush.

1. Do Wisconsin voters really want a Governor who's in the pocket of unions and special interests and willing to let them set the agenda for state residents?

2. Do Wisconsin voters really want higher taxes?

3. Do Wisconsin voters really want four more years of Doyle?

4. Can Wisconsin voters afford four more years of Doyle?