Tweet
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett’s first ad of the gubernatorial recall election in Wisconsin begins by asking the question, “isn’t it time to end the civil war in Wisconsin?” He was referring to Scott Walker and the war on public employees, but he could be referring to the battle among Democrats over the next month.
Though Barrett, the 2010 Democratic nominee for Governor, has racked up some impressive endorsements since entering the race, including Rep. Ron Kind and former Reps. Dave Obey and Steve Kagen (the biggest potential endorsement, from former Sen. Russ Feingold, isn’t coming: he’s staying neutral), he does not have the support of organized labor. In fact, the Wisconsin state AFL-CIO just endorsed former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk, joining AFSCME and the state’s main teacher’s union:
“After careful consideration and discussion with all recall candidates, the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO has endorsed Kathleen Falk for Governor,” said Phil Neuenfeldt, President of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. “Kathleen’s dedication to improving the lives of working people and strengthening our middle class communities are key reasons for her endorsement. She has dedicated her life working for and listening to the people of Wisconsin. Her style of clean, open and honest government is the type of leadership Wisconsin needs.”
“Kathleen Falk will be a champion for working families,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, Secretary-Treasurer of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO. “She will bring our state together so that we can get back onto the path of good job creation and a growing economy.”
It’s not said here, but labor has a particular beef with Barrett. They accuse him of applying the anti-union law, Act 10, to force public employees in Milwaukee to contribute more to pension and health benefits. It’s true that labor agreed to those changes at the time, even before Walker passed his larger law. But they have a problem with Barrett instituting it, among other issues during his time as mayor of Milwaukee. The state AFSCME affiliate even passed around a fairly dishonest audio clip showing Barrett appearing to advocate for the “split the bill” strategy that eventually enabled Republicans to pass the anti-union law.
The point is that unions do not feel that Barrett was totally on their side in that fight last year, which animated this recall. It’s telling that Barrett says in this initial ad that he would “fight to restore collective bargaining rights for teachers and public employees.” But unions have even taken issue with that. They’ve said that Barrett’s strategy for repeal, using a standalone bill, has less of a chance of success than the strategy Falk has advocated, which would be to attach it to a budget bill to force it through.
The problem for labor is that Barrett is favored in most polling in the primary against Falk, Secretary of State Doug LaFollette and state Senator Kathleen Vinehout. Labor would have to spend and probably spend pretty big to dislodge Barrett. And with a massively large recall general election campaign against Walker coming just a month after the primary, that would be unwise. So the question becomes whether labor will put their money where their endorsements are, on Falk and against Barrett.
17 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Well, in a perverse way the brawl among Dems may be a good sign. It could suggest Dems think it’s absolutely possible to beat Walker.
Yawns and sweetness, too much comraderie among Dems would be a very bad sign, I think.
Amazing coverage. Accessible and detailed. Thanks DDay.
Just the fact that Rahm Emanuel is in his court should tell authentic progressives not to support him. That and he could not win against Walker before because he has no charisma and probably can’t speak well because he is not authentic.
John Nichols (The Nation) on WI election history pointed out that to his knowledge no Democratic candidate from Milwaukee ever won a governorship, whereas there have been more than a few from Madison.
M’eh. The only people who can save the Republicans from themselves are Democrats and they do it over and over.
Yep. Reminds me of the HI-01 fiasco when the DNC and Emanuel endorsed Ed Case over the wildly more popular Hanabusa, handing the victory to the otherwise futile campaign of Djou. He even managed to lose Busby the election for Duke Cunningham’s old seat after Cunningham went to prison. Honestly, asking Emanuel for advice on electing Democrats is comparable to asking Squeaky Fromme advice on how to assassinate a President. Ask Rahm what he would do and then do the opposite would be my advice.
Had I been smarter, I would have divorced the Democratic Party in 2006 after Rahm the Magnificent blew off my home state of Michigan and concentrated his energies on the likes of Heath Shuler (D-Backstabber) and Tammy Duckworth (D-Crap Candidate Poster Girl).
I will never, ever again donate a dime of my money to a political party.
Gawd, that’s all I’d have to know.
Rahm is a political assassin. I wonder if endorsement is his weapon of choice?
Funny about Tammy Duckworth, isn’t it. It’s almost guilt inducing to oppose her, but I wouldn’t vote for her and apparently my sentiments are shared by people who actually have the choice. She appears to me to be Obama’s female doppelgänger. What are her chances looking this election?
Yes, this is a very good sign.
I’d rather have a political party that represents me than a President “in my party” that screws me over by bailing out the crooks and leaving the rest of us twisting in the wind.
The one I still don’t understand is Obama actively intervening in a Democratic primary in Arkansas to back a more “centrist” Blanche Lincoln, even though she was certain to lose (and did lose) in the general election. The more progressive and populist candidate at least was polling reasonably well, was a lesser known quantity with fewer negatives than Lincoln, and stood a chance to win. Remember, this was the state that sent William Fulbright to the Senate election after election, and Bill Clinton to the Presidency. Arkansas may not be what we think of as country friendly to liberals, but they don’t have a lot of sentiment for Wall Street either.
In other words, it still appears that Obama deliberately tanked an existing and potential Democratic seat in order to prevent a populist-progressive from even having a chance to win. I still wonder, what was up with that?
Who says Obama’s a Democrat? I think Obama is whatever advances his cause and in Chicago politics, that means Democrat. I’ve come to believe most politicians choose their party affiliations by whatever looks the best chance to get them where they want to go. Do you believe Emanuel is a Democrat? Or a Republican? By me, Rahm Emanuel is whatever gets him what he wants and that seems to be power and money. (Redundant, I know.)
There’s no public service in any of it. Self-aggrandizement. Blanche Lincoln was the candidate most closely aligned with Obama’s advancement. Halter might have been an impediment, at least to the extent that a freshman senator can impede oligarchical progress. Which can’t be much, but Lincoln was a known quantity and already in line with Obama’s agenda. What’s the expression, “Perfect together”? The WH has meddled in other elections on behalf of right wingers.
Consider the possibility that the Republicans are so far right because Obama has forced them there to stay to his right. And every time they scuttle rightward, he sees them and raises. I can’t figure out whether it’s clever or just an insanely personal macho cage match, but the Republicans can’t get far enough right to stop Obama from moving with them. There’s something wickedly funny about the Republicans running away from him in the only direction they can. They ought to consider circling around to his left. It’s a testament to their utter simple-mindlessness that they just keep scrambling to the right.
I can’t see how the unions can win. Is this going to be a replay of the 2008 Presidential election, where we replaced a radical-right President with a centrist?
I wonder if this will continue until there is a party of the 99%?
Labor voting for a Dem to run the state is like a hen voting for a fox to run the chicken coop.
I believe it is called Stockholm syndrome.
Barrett is a DLCer; a Conservative Democrat in a state that has a great history of progressive thinking. He’s the wrong fit here where a clear line must be drawn between the past and the present. Rahm taking credit for anything progressive is a joke. IT was The Deaniacs in 2006 that brought the Dems back into power. In spite of Rahm. He’s the rooster taking credit for the sun rising every morning. What a phony! As bad as his mentor, Bill Clinton. These 2 should be exiled to Miami so they can pick on Castro and Hugo. Ya know, like they’re making Ozzie Guillen do for telling the truth about the bloodsuckers also known as Cuban ex-patriots. More farce here, please. I need another farce. Rahm and Bill, please, another farce! Throw Barrett back into the lake, Badgers, please and thank you.
It’s necessary to surrender the cherished illusion of duopoly.
“If you’re sitting at the table with cardsharps, and you can’t spot the sucker, it’s YOU.”
Tanking, trashing, backstabbing, cutting shitty deals with felons, and deliberately betraying your own party to keep the collegial high-end grift going is probably that thing the Dems do the very best, since they can’t seem to actually govern any better than the ‘Pubes could/did….
Read Walter Karp on how Corpocrats shivved the f* out of Jimmy Carter, throwing ’80 to a diagnosed dementia patient fronting for a criminal consortium, and we all know what came next.
It’s what these bastards have done ever since they entered the Great Wasteland following LBJ.