Kenosha News. May 9, 2012.
Turnout doubt? Never mind
So much for the idea that voters might not show up for elections in May.
Tuesday's primary election drew a 30 percent turnout of eligible voters. That doesn't sound like a lot, but it's the highest turnout for a partisan primary in 60 years.
The turnout by Republicans sent a clear message that they are fully engaged in this recall election.
Despite only token opposition for Gov. Scott Walker, 646,000 Republican votes for governor were cast Tuesday.
That wasn't far off the total Democratic votes for governor of 670,000, and there was a four-way race among Democrats.
In addition, it is likely some voters who will vote for Walker on June 5 assumed that he would easily survive the primary and participated in the Democratic primary. Wisconsin election laws don't require registering with a party, so a voter can participate in the party primary he or she chooses.
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett won the Democratic Party primary by a comfortable margin, 58 percent of the vote to Kathleen Falk's 34 percent. That makes the recall election on June 5 a replay of the 2010 race, which Walker won.
Some political observers wondered who would actually participate in an election on June 5.
If primary participation on May 8 is an indicator, voters are involved to a greater extent than usual. Who'll go to polls on a nice day in June? Maybe almost everybody.
That's if four weeks of attack ads on television don't diminish their enthusiasm.
____
La Crosse Tribune. May 10, 2012.
Noisy campaigns a big distraction
Strap yourselves in. The next 27 days until Wisconsin decides who the next governor will be is sure to be a wild ride.
While the unprecedented recall election may thrill the most ardent political wonks, the certain barrage of attack ads that will fill the airwaves may also nauseate the rest of us.
Incumbent Republican Scott Walker did not raise $25 million just to have money in the bank. And you can expect Democratic challenger Tom Barrett to have his meager $831,000 cache grow substantially.
That amount, of course, does not include the money that will be spent by outside groups on both sides that will try to have their voice heard as well. Wisconsin may be trailing the country in job creation, but we've certainly created a cottage industry for campaign spending.
But this election is about more than attack ads. It should be about something as old-fashioned as the issues. That's why we urge the candidates to participate in the quaint notion of debates.
On Wednesday, Barrett said he would like to debate Walker four times before the June 5 election, and Walker's campaign said it has agreed to debates on May 25 and May 31.
This is not just an election about collective bargaining rights, despite a prediction from Walker in January that his opponent would be selected by big unions. "People ask me who my opponent is going to be, and I say the person doesn't matter," Walker told Politico. "It's going to be the big union bosses."
A funny thing happened Tuesday on the way to the general election. The favored candidate of the unions — Kathleen Falk — finished second to Barrett in the primary.
So much for the big union bosses.
Walker also told Politico that his campaign will focus on his record compared to his opponent's and will not be unfair. "We'll run ads that define the differences," he said. "We're not going to take cheap shots. I don't think people want that."
Whether Walker keeps his word will remain to be seen, but don't think that other pro-Walker special interest groups won't fire away. Barrett said Wednesday he expects to be the target of what he called "30-second drive-by shootings." And the pro-Barrett special interest groups will respond with their own electronic weaponry.
That's why it's so important — for the sake of Wisconsin and for the sake of any sort of election sanity and sanctity — that there be some sort of debate between the candidates. Just the two of them, directly answering questions, without the aid of a vast campaign filter, so the extremely rare species called the undecided voter can make an informed decision about which candidate deserves support.
Somewhere in the noise of the campaign and the massive mudslinging there needs to be some moments of honest clarity. The voters — and our democracy — deserve it.
____
The Sheboygan Press. May 8, 2012.
Prepare for monthlong spin cycle
On Wednesday, Barrett said he would like to debate Walker four times before the June 5 election, and Walker's campaign said it has agreed to debates on May 25 and May 31.
Tuesday's Democratic recall primary election was only a warm up to June 5, when Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett will square off with Gov. Scott Walker in one of Wisconsin's most historic elections.
With just two remaining contenders, expect the game to become much more heated in the next month. Accusations and counter-accusations will fly. The candidates will traverse the state, trying to score points with voters and convince those on the fence to vote for them.
Just how many of these potential swing votes are there? The answer to that question — and how they vote — could tip the election.
Never have battle lines been so clearly drawn on a particular issue — collective bargaining — as in this election. Those in the Barrett camp include mostly Democrats, who want to see unions gain back the privileges they've lost to Walker's reforms.
The Walker camp is just as strictly entrenched behind those reforms, which they argue have allowed local governments flexibility in controlling their budgets and have put unions in their proper place.
There is little room for agreement on that issue and many votes will be cast based on one position or the other.
But what about those who see this election from different perspectives, who don't have a vested interest in the arena of collective bargaining?
They might vote on issues like jobs, taxes and the environment, or social concerns such as abortion or women's rights. Or simply on personality and the perceived ability to lead the state.
It is difficult to get a handle on how these voters — and there are a substantial number of them — will cast their ballots in Wisconsin's first gubernatorial recall election.
It will be a disservice to the democratic process, however, if anyone votes on the "merits" of the vitriol that is sure to spew over the next four weeks from both sides. There will be major spin, and it will become increasingly difficult for voters caught in it to remain steadfast enough to gain a proper perspective on the candidates and their positions.
That is true of most elections, but this one in particular is imbued with so much emotion and acrimony that it is incumbent on voters to separate the plausible and factual from the specious and the spin.
That won't be easy in an election as polarizing as this one. A great many minds are already made up and won't change before June 5. If you are among the undecided, do your homework and reach a conclusion that will translate at the ballot box.
The worst course of action is inaction, however. There may be a temptation to dismiss the election because of the rancor it will continue to engender. Please resist that temptation and vow to take part in what will be an election for the ages in Wisconsin.
____
Beloit Daily News. May 12, 2012.
Obama faced very little risk
So what is the outcome likely to be now that President Obama has evolved ... well, back to where he used to be as an Illinois legislator on the subject of same-sex marriage?
In a 1996 interview in Illinois, Obama said, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
Unless, of course, it's politically expedient to do otherwise.
Besides, was anyone really surprised by his stand? Observers knew all along Obama favored same-sex marriage and just hadn't gotten around to acknowledging as much for political reasons.
But give Obama a pass on that. If every politician had to answer for each flip-floppy response uttered over a career, it would be difficult indeed to find any pure of heart and mind. Taking liberty with the truth, apparently, is an occupational imperative.
Will the president's position, stated earlier this week, that he now endorses legalizing same-sex marriages have any practical impact on either the law of the land or this fall's election?
First, the law. More than 30 states have posed the marriage question to voters by public referendum, and voters say no. A handful of states allow same-sex marriage, but most continue to block the altar.
Don't expect the federal government to bigfoot these states, either. With divided government in Congress, legislation would have little chance. And the Obamacare argument has proven state governors and attorney generals are not shy about pushing back hard when federal officials try to impose policies.
That doesn't mean same-sex marriage advocates are forever fighting a losing battle. Surveys clearly indicate young Americans are far more accepting of the concept. One of these days those young people will be in charge, and the regular political process may result in same-sex marriage becoming the new norm.
Or the U.S. Supreme Court could decide same-sex marriage bans are discriminatory and unconstitutional. Cases are working their way toward the court, and no one can take for granted how justices will rule.
As for politics in this presidential year, Obama's pronouncement is unlikely to help or hurt the candidate much.
Think about it.
Those voters who adamantly oppose same-sex marriage were not very likely to vote for Obama anyway.
And the voters who zealously favor same-sex marriage undoubtedly were for Obama before he endorsed the position.
At most, his position works to solidify both bases.
Nothing really has changed. The election will turn on the state of the economy and, more particularly, how individual voters feel about their prospects and financial stability.
Social and moral issues are important, very important. But people vote their pocketbooks.