Monday, February 06, 2006

Green's Endorsers--Should CONSERVATIVES Be Happy?

Hmmm. I smell RINO offal:

Green’s campaign has also gotten a boost from influential Republican leaders in Wisconsin supporting him, including Michael Grebe, a National Republican Committee member and CEO of the Bradley Foundation.

Green backers also include some top aides and advisers to former Gov. Tommy G. Thompson, including James R. Klauser, a Wisconsin Energies vice president who served as Thompson’s top state and campaign aide; and Janesville lawyer George Steil Sr., a member of Thompson’s kitchen cabinet.

Green also counts fellow Republican Rep. Paul Ryan and former GOP Rep. Scott Klug as supporters, said Mark Graul, Green’s campaign manager.

HT: GOP3

13 comments:

M.Z. Forrest said...

Currently my bets are with Green. I question whether Walker can win the Valley. If the Republicans don't win the Valley, we'll have 20 years of Gov. Doyle. I don't think Green is RINO. I think the smart money and people are going to him, because of the necessity of winning the Valley.

Terrence Berres said...

Isn't it for the Republicans to say who is a Republican "in name only"?

Dad29 said...

Sorry, Terry: RINOs are RINOs no matter who is the observer.

Also interesting, but not quoted on the post, is the fact that Mark Neumann has endorsed Walker.

MZ: Maybe Green can pull off the Valley, which is great. However, he has almost NEVER appeared in the Milwaukee area, and he will need SOME support from down here if he expects to win the primary.

Finally--Doyle is pretty weak. At this point, either Pubbie could defeat him, all other things being equal.

D said...

I think this Republican led Congress has shown they are all RINOs when it comes to spending...

MZ- The Republicans will win the Valley no matter who the candidate is... however it won't be Green unless he can pull something out of Southeastern Wisconsin. It looks like Walker has significant support in Waukesha County as well.. one of the most Republican counties in the State.

Terrence Berres said...

You can, as Dad29 and others just did, distinguish being a conservative from being a Republican. But once you've done that, what basis is there to apply the term RINO to some Republicans based on their not being conservative?

Dad29 said...

Many people call themselves Republicans. But not all who call themselves Republicans actually adhere to Republican platform planks or the Party's philosophy (in brief, small Government and rightly-ordered behavior-rules enshrined in law.)

Most of the violations occur over the "small Government" part, but there are a few notable pro-abortion "Republicans."

Repeated and egregious offenses against either of the two above principles makes one a "RINO."

I don't have to be Catholic to observe that there are MANY "CINOs" running around; it's an observation which is akin to observing that type is black and paper is white.

The option, of course, is to call them what they really are: Statists, or Baby-Killers.

Terrence Berres said...

I suppose someone who doesn't hold a particular set of principles can judge, to some extent, if people who claim to hold them live by them. (See The Big Lebowski on nihilism.)

But that isn't what you seem to be doing. It sounds like you're saying you hold the true Republican principles while many members of the party do not. That wouldn't be denying you're a Republican. It would be saying you're a real Republican and don't want to associate yourself with the nominal Republicans.

Dad29 said...

Read my lips: I am a CONSERVATIVE.

It's perfectly legitimate to hold people to the standards THEY set for themselves, is it not? Are MD's to be held to the standards of plumbers?

Thus, when a Party writes its platform, and states some things therein, an objective outside observer can say that those who do NOT adhere to those principles are "X-in-Name-Only."

You seem to be entangled here in attempting to disqualify me as a Republican. That's fine with me: I am NOT a Republican.

On the other hand, I do vote for them, occasionally--as I vote for the Constitution Party people, occasionally.

I just don't vote for a Democrat--at least not since 1976...

M.Z. Forrest said...

If the Repubicans don't leave SE Wisconsin with at least 45% of the vote, the election is lost no matter what happens in the rest of the State.

Counties over 100,000 people: votes for McCallum/Doyle
&Brown(237K): 32K/30K
Dane(453K): 42K/97K
*Kenosha(158K): 15K/22K
LaCrosse(108K): 13K/15K
Marathon(127K): 17K/19K
*Milwaukee(928K): 95K/151K
&Outagamie(169K): 24K/21K
*Racine(194K): 27K/28K
Rock(156K): 15K/27K
*Sheboygan(113K): 20K/18K
*Washington(124K): 26K/11K
*Waukesha(377K): 88K/42K
&Winnebago(159K): 23K/22K
Total: 437K/503K
Rest of State: 296K/298K

The Republicans need to do better than 52% out of the Valley(&). If they can do 60/40 they should net an extra 30K votes. At 50% in SE Wisconsin(*), they shouldn't lose. If they get below 45%, they are 54K votes in the hole and have no chance of winning. Republicans do have a shot at taking the Valley at this margin. I like Scott Walker, but I don't see him beating Doyle in SE Wisconsin. Dane County will net Doyle 40K votes regardless.

Terrence Berres said...

The Republican platform opposes judicial acitivism. That's usually thought of as a conservative position. As I recall, you and Republican legislative leaders considered the state supreme court's decision invalidating the the malpractice damage caps to be judicial activism. If Republicans compromise on that issue, wouldn't that be RINO (and conservative-in-name-only) by your standard?

Dad29 said...

Terry, the compromise will be a LEGISLATIVE act, not a JUDICIAL act.

You are correct, judicial activism which contravenes reasonable (and Constitutional) legislation is not a Republican (nor a Conservative) value.

Terrence Berres said...

Based on what you've said previously about this court decision, you're advocating a Republican compromise contrary to party and conservative values.

You can say that in this case the public interest is better served by resolving the issue now, getting the "best deal" possible. When public officials say that, isn't that when they get called RINO (or DINO as the case may be)?

Dad29 said...

I advocate a compromise which meets public policy goals. That's the province of the Legislature. If $300K/settlement is all it costs (instead of the $1 zillion awarded yesterday) then that may be the best public policy.

I'd also be willing to try "actual costs" + "actual cost of maintenance" + $250K for non-economic losses, by the way--with NONE of it in annuities, just paid in cash, monthly.