.gif)
The state of Wisconsin has become synonymous with the word "reform" in the minds of many political analysts. From one of the most effective third parties ever in American history, the Progressive Party, to today's ground-breaking welfare reform program spearheaded by Republican Governor Tommy Thompson, to Democratic Senator Russell Feingold's campaign for re-election to the Senate which took the unprecedented step of refusing any and all PAC money or soft money ads, this state prides itself on being open-minded, innovative, and ahead of its time. Just one example of how that plays out in its local politics: Wisconsin has had open primaries for decades, long before it became the rage among good-government reformer types. And, of course, it voted for third-party/independent presidential candidates in excess of the national average both in 92 and 96.
One of the great ironies of history is that this state also produced one of the most powerful and dangerous demagogues we have ever seen in our country, the late unlamented Joseph McCarthy (R). But despite that monumental aberration this state just feels right for ARP; we need to stake a claim here.
Politically, Kohl has had some rough times. He won his first race for the Senate by only 52% and in 94, against an ultra-right-winger, won by only 58%. If the Republicans see the light, and run a moderate in 2000, Kohl could once again be vulnerable. The ARP should grapple him unto its soul with hoops of steel. This is someone to protect and support; we need more like him.
Junior Democratic Senator Russell Feingold is no stranger to the reform movement. He is the co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, the most widely supported bill in that area that has come along in that area for some time among the good-government Common Cause-type organizations. In addition, he is a bit of a pork-buster too, having voted to kill helium subsidies and the supercollider. He was an opponent of NAFTA, and is also an opponent of MFN status for China, an issue which is also of concern to some in ARP.
He is also at times more independent of the influence of the Clinton administration than are his Democratic brethren. He has consistently disagreed with Attorney General Reno on her approach to the 1996 campaign finance scandals and has called on her to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the matter. He also was the only Democratic Senator to vote against summary dismissal of the impeachment case and to vote for the submission of limited written testimony in the Senate impeachment trial. While ARP has taken, and probably will take, no position on the impeachment matter, a Democratic Senator who swims against the tide of his party is, in my opinion, as valuable a potential ally as a Republican who swims against his. It is in that context that we need to be appreciative of Feingold's independence in this regard.
In terms of his voting record, while truly independent and a genuine reformer, as a card-carrying liberal he is not someone who I typically would see as a potential ARP endorsee. Yes, he received a 68% rating from the Concord Coalition in 1995. But he followed that with a not very spectacular 27% in 96. Yes, he has received the TCS Taxpayer hero award for two years running and supported the affluence-testing provisions in the Kerrey-Moynihan entitlement reform package. But he also opposed their provision in that package to raise eligibility/retirement age and opposed the bipartisan Chafee-Breaux balanced budget plan. On balance, then, it would appear that his very consistent stance on political reform is balanced by an inconsistence stance on fiscal issues.
But it's not that simple; Russ Feingold is one of the poster
boys of campaign finance reform, one of our two most important issues.
Not only would we appear hypocritical and inconsistent if we were not to
support him; it would also almost certainly be
counter-productive in terms of our overall agenda. Which means
that,
just as we recognize that Linda Smith on the right played such a
valuable role on this particular issue that she deserves our support,
so
Russ Feingold, one of the highest visibility leaders in the nation
on
this issue, has clearly demonstrated that he does more good than
harm to
us and therefore likewise deserves our help.
Politically speaking, it would appear that he
could use it. In 1998, he set himself the very unusual challenge
of running for re-election without the benefit of soft money; he
simply refused to accept any party help so funded at all from the party,
and made that bluntly clear to the Democrats' Senate campaign chief, Bob
Kerrey. Despite this ethically imposed handicap, he won the race,
by a razor-thin margin of 50% to 48%. In 2004, I suggest it should
be ARP's challenge to increase that margin by 10 points. This man
is worthy of our support, and I hope we can give it wholeheartedly.
In any event, there are no obvious political figures
in this district now who would appear to be potential ARP or ARP-sympathetic
candidates. For now, we probably need to run a flag-planting campaign
with a respectable unknown, with the goal of receiving between 5% and 10%
of the vote, which should be sufficient to prevent either Republicrat candidate
from receiving a majority of the vote in 2000.
I propose the following: Scott Klug(R) served
in the House, representing this district, for eight years, from 1990 to
1998. His positions matched those of ARP closely. Unfortunately,
he became fed up with the crazies in the House Republican leadership and
as a result decided not to run for re-election. I believe that he
is not fed up with politics, just Republican politics. If he could
be convinced, by a high-profile ARP groundswell bolstered by candidates
like Penny and Linda Smith, that there was another game in town, I believe
he could be enticed back into the ring. Our best course of action
here, in my opinion, would be to try to persuade him to run in '00 after
all, AS OUR CANDIDATE! And my sense is that he's just fed up enough
to maybe do it.
We should give a pass to incumbent Ron Kind(D),
who spotlights wasteful government spending, supports campaign finance
reform, is a long-time co-sponsor of Shays/Meehan, opposes fast track,
and supported the Blue Dog budget this year. He is trying to revive
the Golden Fleece award, and fancies himself a latter-day William Proxmire.
There are worse things one could be. On the other hand, if our contacts
with Kind make it clear that under no circumstances would he ever be prepared
to help us, there is an interesting fallback here. For years, this
district was represented by a rather well-known moderate Republican, Steve
Gunderson. Though he was still quite popular here, Gunderson decided
not to run for re-election in '96. If ARP appears to be doing well
(recruiting credible viable congressional and senatorial candidates) I
believe he could be persuaded to bolt the GOP and get back into the game
in '00 as one of our guys.
While Kleczka is not ARP material, neither is
his Republican opposition. For two elections running, his opponent
has been an ultra-right-wing Christian fundamentalist, Tom Reynolds.
In this district, as in Idaho's First CD, there is a classic hole in the
political middle which ARP could fill. While there is no high-visibility
figure in this district who matches the ARP profile, I feel at the least
we should field a respectable unknown in a flag-planting campaign.
Our goal in 2000 should be to win a total of 8%, probably enough to hold
Kleczka's total below that of an absolute majority.
We should support Tom Barrett(D), despite poor
showings by third party and independent candidates in this district.
Barrett is both a Blue Dog budget supporter and a Shays/Meehan co-sponsor.
We should work hard for Barrett's re-election in 2000. After all,
it never hurts for a congressman to be told that a galvanized constituency
in his district, which supports a nationwide ARP coalition in the making,
is prepared to support his political efforts. And if anyone might
be a Trojan Horse when it comes to our governmental agenda, Barrett might
be one.
The current incumbent is Republican Thomas Petri. The Democratic party is so moribund here that they did not even bother to field an opponent to Petri.
It is not hard to figure out why. Petri commands respect and cooperation on a bipartisan basis. He also has high marks from the Concord Coalition and the Taxpayers for Common Sense for his fiscal stands. He was one of a courageous band of 95 congresspeople who voted against last year's omnibus budget, which was thrown together hastily and months late, and appropriated billions of dollars that broke budget caps to which both parties had agreed in early 97, under the fig leaf excuse that they were "emergency expenditures." He also voted against the military construction bill, which was in fact a Pentagon pork givaway.
In two peculiar positions, of which ARP should be aware but not judgemental, he opposed both the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill and this year's Blue Dog budget. His opposition to the former stemmed not from opposition to campaign finance reform but from his strong belief that it did not do enough to make it easier for ordinary citizens to contribute political campaigns. He has advocated that people who contribute $200 or less receive a 50% tax deduction. I am not aware of the grounds on which his opposition to the Blue Dog budget was based, but the bottom line appears to be that Petri has a strong and sometimes counter-productive streak of perfectionism.
In general, however, this Representative seems
to be the kind of public servant we are looking for. While he does
not necessarily need our support, if we were to give it to him it would
still be helpful in cementing his possible ties to other members of our
congressional coalition.
Incumbent Democratic Representative David
Obey is a committed political reformer, and was very active in the coalition
that pushed through Shays-Meehan in the House last year. However,
he is an inveterate Democratic liberal on other matters and, moreover,
serves on the Appropriations Committee. All of which means that his
fiscal stands, as evidenced by his most recent Concord Coalition rating
of 10%, are not what ARP would like to see in one of its candidates.
Since this district is more sympathetic to third-party/independent
presidential candidates than the nation as a whole, it would probably make
sense for us to get involved here. But due to the lack of a high
visibility figure here in the ARP mold we can only run a flag-planting
campaign here for a respectable unknown. Our most logical goal here,
I believe, should be to duplicate the 16% total which third-party/independent
presidential candidates accumulated here in 96. That total should
be sufficient to hold Obey under 50% in 2000.
The only figure in this district here who might conceivably be sympathetic to ARP stances is Stan Gruszynski, who based his unsuccessful campaign in the Democratic primary here in 1996 on the issue of campaign finance reform. I know nothing of his fiscal stances.
If Gruszynski doesn't cut it, then we shall have
to run a flag-planting campaign. Our goal should be to win over 5%
of the vote, which should be sufficient to deprive the eventual Republicrat
victor of an absolute majority.
The Democratic party is virtually non-existent here, at least insofar as this House seat is concerned. They didn't even bother to run a candidate in 98. This may mean that there could be an additional vacuum here which we could fill. I suggest a moderate conservative campaign by a respectable unknown which would stress political reform. In that connection, a Jeffery (sic) Gonyo received 9% as an independent last year. Perhaps we should touch base with him and find out what he's about.
What's New? | State Links | Platform | Constitution | Press Releases | History
Archives | Convention | Membership | Contributions | Contact Us | Home