I'm not a huge fan of the Huebsch for Speaker movement, and truthfully, there are honest criticisms that can be laid at the feet of Dean Kaufert as well. Neither is perfect, and we probably can't expect a perfect candidate anyway. However, I'll take Huebsch or Kaufert before I'd ever take Charlie Sykes as speaker. Er, Leah Vukmir. Sorry. Their talking points are so similar I get them confused.
According to Mark Rahmlow today on WisPolitics:
Conservatives can function in leadership, and function well. The Senate Republicans did well to choose Scott Fitzgerald as their incoming Minority Leader. Fitzgerald is a reliable conservative and will help to keep the Democrats on their toes. The job of a minority leader isn't to build coalitions and get things passed. His job is to be the conscientious objector, the clear voice of the opposition. Sen. Fitzgerald will be great at that. But that's not what you need when you're running the show.
Being in the minority is far different than being in the majority. Dale Schultz was the right guy to lead that caucus when they were in the majority. He's a moderate who can build consensus. But the Senate Republicans are on the outside looking in now, and they're probably better off with a guy like Fitzgerald who doesn't have to govern, but has to keep the Democrats honest.
However, to suggest that this change means the Senate Republicans are moving to the right is a joke. To assert that Senators move anywhere is ridiculous. Each of them is his or her own island over there. They look in the mirror in the morning and see a governor. What the Senate GOP has been liberated to do is elect people to leadership who will clearly articulate a conservative message.
The Assembly, however, is still responsible for governing. And with that, I'd like to introduce Mark to the 52-seat majority. Depending on Doyle's schenanigans, it could end a 50 or 51-seat majority. 52-seat majorities have to be moderate by design if they hope to accomplish anything. You know, results? The thing that voters elect politicians to get. Electing a Charlie Sykes puppet as Speaker would only increase enmity and discord in the caucus.
That's why Vukmir would be such a train wreck. It'd be like all those voters back in 1960 who wondered whether John F. Kennedy could be the president and a practicing Catholic. People would constantly question whether Vukmir was being loyal to her caucus or just serving as a foot soldier for the talking heads of Milwaukee squawk radio.
Governing with a 52-seat majority is all about one word: compromise. There's just no room for absolutism when you need virtually everyone on board to get anything accomplished. The easy alternative on many low-profile issues will be to get a handful of Democrats on board. But on other issues, Republicans will have to find a way to get 95% of their caucus to support a bill. Without a lot of moderation or a lot of horse trading, that won't happen.
Whether the Assembly picks Mike Huebsch or Dean Kaufert, their primary functions in the next two years will be the same: goalkeeper and consensus builder. Neither can get a hard-line, right-wing budget passed. And judging by the comments both have made publicly, both understand that. The next two years is about shunting all the divisive social stuff (they don't have the votes to pass it anyway) and getting back to brass tacks; namely, convincing voters once again that Republicans are indeed the party of limited government. That's the winning message for Republicans. It's not goofy conscience clause bills, it's not being the water boy for PLW.
It's birthday week on the Playground, and I'll try to give a gift to Assembly Republicans because deep down, I still love them even though they've behaved terribly as of late. Want a winning message? Cut taxes in a way that everyone benefits. Cut the sales tax by a tenth or a quarter of a point. Or increase the standard deduction on state income taxes. Start with that - a tax cut you can sell to everyone. Then find a way to streamline other programs to fit your anticipated revenue stream.
The reason the GOP never gets credit for its tax cuts is because they're all vanity cuts these days, targeted at specific groups that pony up the cash to get them. Heck, if the GOP has to roll back a few targeted cuts to pay for a broader reduction, do it. Give voters a reason to believe you aren't afraid to be bold. You win zero votes from the average voter by exempting ATMs or restaurant equipment from property taxes. None.
Show up at the budget table this summer with a big idea and mean business about it. If the GOP shows up with a sales tax cut or an income tax cut that is paid for responsibly, Doyle and the Democrats will have no choice but to swallow it - just like with the repeal of gas tax indexing. And there'd be no better way to protect those remaining Republican incumbents than by letting them go home to their voters and say "Republicans cut your taxes."
According to Mark Rahmlow today on WisPolitics:
Republicans will not take back the state Senate or increase their Assembly majority through moderation. They will need to have leaders that stand for bold ideas and put into action a plan that will show voters the difference between the two parties. Vukmir was one of three Republicans that truly supported Rep. Frank Lasee's (R- Bellevue) Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Vukmir would provide effective leadership and better articulate the conservative agenda.
In the last session, Vukmir introduced legislation strengthening parental notification laws for minors seeking abortion, authored a bill to cap attorney fees in medical malpractice cases, cracked down on sexual predators, worked to expand charter and choice, led on the voter identification bill, and proposed a cancer drug repository program. Vukmir has to be choice of the conservative movement.
Conservatives can function in leadership, and function well. The Senate Republicans did well to choose Scott Fitzgerald as their incoming Minority Leader. Fitzgerald is a reliable conservative and will help to keep the Democrats on their toes. The job of a minority leader isn't to build coalitions and get things passed. His job is to be the conscientious objector, the clear voice of the opposition. Sen. Fitzgerald will be great at that. But that's not what you need when you're running the show.
Being in the minority is far different than being in the majority. Dale Schultz was the right guy to lead that caucus when they were in the majority. He's a moderate who can build consensus. But the Senate Republicans are on the outside looking in now, and they're probably better off with a guy like Fitzgerald who doesn't have to govern, but has to keep the Democrats honest.
However, to suggest that this change means the Senate Republicans are moving to the right is a joke. To assert that Senators move anywhere is ridiculous. Each of them is his or her own island over there. They look in the mirror in the morning and see a governor. What the Senate GOP has been liberated to do is elect people to leadership who will clearly articulate a conservative message.
The Assembly, however, is still responsible for governing. And with that, I'd like to introduce Mark to the 52-seat majority. Depending on Doyle's schenanigans, it could end a 50 or 51-seat majority. 52-seat majorities have to be moderate by design if they hope to accomplish anything. You know, results? The thing that voters elect politicians to get. Electing a Charlie Sykes puppet as Speaker would only increase enmity and discord in the caucus.
That's why Vukmir would be such a train wreck. It'd be like all those voters back in 1960 who wondered whether John F. Kennedy could be the president and a practicing Catholic. People would constantly question whether Vukmir was being loyal to her caucus or just serving as a foot soldier for the talking heads of Milwaukee squawk radio.
Governing with a 52-seat majority is all about one word: compromise. There's just no room for absolutism when you need virtually everyone on board to get anything accomplished. The easy alternative on many low-profile issues will be to get a handful of Democrats on board. But on other issues, Republicans will have to find a way to get 95% of their caucus to support a bill. Without a lot of moderation or a lot of horse trading, that won't happen.
Whether the Assembly picks Mike Huebsch or Dean Kaufert, their primary functions in the next two years will be the same: goalkeeper and consensus builder. Neither can get a hard-line, right-wing budget passed. And judging by the comments both have made publicly, both understand that. The next two years is about shunting all the divisive social stuff (they don't have the votes to pass it anyway) and getting back to brass tacks; namely, convincing voters once again that Republicans are indeed the party of limited government. That's the winning message for Republicans. It's not goofy conscience clause bills, it's not being the water boy for PLW.
It's birthday week on the Playground, and I'll try to give a gift to Assembly Republicans because deep down, I still love them even though they've behaved terribly as of late. Want a winning message? Cut taxes in a way that everyone benefits. Cut the sales tax by a tenth or a quarter of a point. Or increase the standard deduction on state income taxes. Start with that - a tax cut you can sell to everyone. Then find a way to streamline other programs to fit your anticipated revenue stream.
The reason the GOP never gets credit for its tax cuts is because they're all vanity cuts these days, targeted at specific groups that pony up the cash to get them. Heck, if the GOP has to roll back a few targeted cuts to pay for a broader reduction, do it. Give voters a reason to believe you aren't afraid to be bold. You win zero votes from the average voter by exempting ATMs or restaurant equipment from property taxes. None.
Show up at the budget table this summer with a big idea and mean business about it. If the GOP shows up with a sales tax cut or an income tax cut that is paid for responsibly, Doyle and the Democrats will have no choice but to swallow it - just like with the repeal of gas tax indexing. And there'd be no better way to protect those remaining Republican incumbents than by letting them go home to their voters and say "Republicans cut your taxes."
9 comments:
Worse than Kaufert? No way.
I am glad that you are not responsible for developing legislative strategy. With your way of thinking, Republicans would be doomed for decades.
They seem to be careening into the minority just fine without my help. And I'm not saying Vukmir lacks the skills to be an effective leader. Far from it. She's just too much of a suck-up to talk radio to ever get a lot of the outstate people on board. Sykes and Belling have turned a sizable portion of the suburban Milwaukee delegation into a personal set of marionettes. A lot of people don't like that.
Besdies, it'd be bad for HER to be speaker, because at some point she'd have to do something talk radio hates, at which time everyone in SE Wisconsin will be all over her for it.
Vukmir's smart to just keep her head down and work behind the scenes to advance her causes. She seems to do quite well by it.
Whatever. All I am saying is that moving left towards Kaufert would be the last straw for the Republican Party.
You can never beat Democrats by going their way. There is no prize in it. What you do lose is any significant difference between the parties. Kaufert is politically ambiguous – neither right, nor left, nor anything of value.
You are reading the tea-leaves all wrong. At the federal level, the moderate Republicans led us to defeat and they are going to be replaced by conservatives, perhaps even Paul Ryan will take a leadership post. The difference between DC and Wisconsin right now is that they get it and a few of our people (you and a handful of others) don’t.
And all I'm saying is that I think Republicans would be way better served by staying away from all the attempts at social engineering and just sticking to limited government and fiscal conservatism. If Huebsch can do that, more power to him. Republicans are losing because they've tricked themselves into thinking that the average Republican voter cares more about the GOP delivering on gay marriage than on taxes. We saw how well that worked out last week.
So perhaps we can take a renewed focus on fiscal conservatism as a point of agreement, even if we may disagree on which faces should be on the covers of the newspapers.
We are actually in complete agreement on the issues. The Assembly should focus on fiscal issues in this session. But that disqualifies Kaufert. He has been a member of PIG (Party In Government) as co-chair of JFC. He LOVES spending money and has no problem taxing things. If he were the speaker, he would be in the prone position mumbling thank-you with every lost battle.
In the meantime you are blaming Huebsch for everything John Gard screwed up. That makes no sense at all.
I agree that John Gard has a lot of culpability for the current situation. But Huebsch was Majority Leader that whole time as well. And this fall, he took the bad hand and played it terribly.
Between John Gard and this "tidal wave" BS it seems as though Huebsch and company want to accept none of the responsibility for that train wreck last Tuesday. Frankly, that kind of dodging accountability isn't very reassuring.
Sure, it wasn't all Mike's fault. But a lot of it was. He and his army of advisers put on a veritable Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade of bad campaign strategy, complete with Snoopy balloons and Regis Philbin on the mike.
We're all better off if the Assembly Republicans don't completely self-destruct this session, and hell, I'll give Huebsch and Kaufert both credit for wrestling over the steering wheel on a leaky, leaky ship. After all, it'd be a lot easier to sit back, wait for Rome to finish burning, and then run for minority leader.
Being the majority leader means being able to say - "you are wrong, but I will do it anyway." That was Mike Huebsch with John Gard.
Foti was probably the best majority leader the capitol ever had. Combine that with the best speaker (Jensen) and you had a team.
Now you have what you have. The question is: do you make chicken sh!# with it or chicken salad?
Hint: Huebsch and a piece of bread will get you a meal.
The last word is yours. I'm not sure anyone could say it any better than that.
"Dale Schultz was the right guy to lead that caucus when they were in the majority."
What possible good did Schultz do as majority leader?
Post a Comment