I Bet K Street Lobbyist Tommy Thompson Wishes He Didn't Approve This Message-- A Game Loser In Wisconsin

A desperate last minute smear from Tommy Thompson's campaign is probably the final nail in his own political coffin. The biggest newspaper in Wisconsin, Milwaukee's Journal-Sentinel ran a big story about how Thompson's ad is another right-wing lie, which is basically all you get out of that campaign anyway.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tommy Thompson uses military veterans, images of the fallen twin towers and pictures of 9/11 victims to criticize Democratic rival Tammy Baldwin in a new television ad.

...Let’s look at the core claim in this ad: That Baldwin, a U.S. House member from Madison, voted against a tribute to Sept. 11 victims.

The claim stems from a Sept. 14, 2006, vote on a resolution commemorating the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Baldwin was one of 22 House members-- 21 Democrats and one Republican [Ron Paul]-- to vote against the resolution.

Thompson campaign spokeswoman Lisa Boothe said the matter was pretty cut and dried.

"It is simple, she was one of 22 members that voted against it, an incredibly small margin.  This was a near unanimous vote."

So there is some truth in Thompson claim.

But that’s far from the entire story.

At the time, Baldwin delivered a speech on the House floor denouncing Republicans for adding language to the routine commemoration that she did not agree with.

According to the Congressional Record, here’s what she said Sept. 13, 2006:

"Mr. Speaker, on the fifth anniversary of the worst attack on American soil, my Republican colleagues have disgracefully politicized what should have been a solemn and sincere resolution.

"This week we are mourning the tragic losses of innocent lives as well as commemorating the unsurpassed heroism that was on display that day.

"We are expressing our gratitude to our nation’s law enforcement officers for their tireless dedication to make our country safer; and we are reaffirming our nation’s resolve to combat terrorism and secure our homeland. But rather than offering a bipartisan resolution that unites us on this solemn occasion, the Republican leadership converted the bill into an endorsement of the Patriot Act, punitive immigration bills, and other highly controversial measures, which many of my constituents oppose.

"This bill was cynically transformed from a memorial resolution to an endorsement of President Bush’s failed policies. The Republicans show enormous disrespect to the 9/11 victims and families by playing election year politics with something as solemn as the fifth anniversary of 9/11; I will vote against the bill."

The publication CQ Weekly, which covers Congress, described the resolution this way in a Sept. 18, 2006 piece:

"But this year’s version was different. Taken up 54 days before one of the most pivotal elections in a decade, the measure afforded Republicans and Democrats a platform from which to argue about which party is more determined to prevail in the war on terror."

The story added: "Republicans stuffed the bill with references to GOP-crafted measures that they say improve national security. Democrats, who voted for some of the bills listed in the resolution, wanted no references to new laws, and complained that framing the resolution that way made it too much of a political document."

Thompson’s ad shows a portion of a Sept. 14, 2006, headline from Baldwin’s hometown Capital Times--  "Baldwin rejects 9-11 tribute"-- but not the entire headline, which read: "Baldwin rejects 9/11 tribute, saying it insults victims, families."

The Baldwin campaign notes that she has voted in favor of a similar resolution honoring 9/11 victims nine times-- in 2001, ‘02, ‘04, ‘05, ‘07, ‘08, ‘09 ‘10 and ‘11.

The campaign also points out that one day before the 2006 vote, Baldwin voted in favor of a resolution calling for "establishing a national memorial at the World Trade Center site to commemorate and mourn the events of February 26, 1993, and September 11, 2001."

Thompson said his Democratic challenger voted against a resolution honoring 9/11 victims. Technically he’s correct. Baldwin voted against the measure in 2006-- and criticized Republicans for adding in references to the Patriot Act, immigration bills, and other controversial matters.

But Baldwin has voted nine times in favor of similar resolutions and the day before the vote in question supported creation of a memorial at the World Trade Center site.

Thompson’s statement contains an element of truth, but leaves out critical information that would give a different impression. That’s our definition of Mostly False.

This week Wisconsin's Professional Fire Fighters Union, answered Thompson with a far more powerful ad of their own (the one up top) asking Thompson if he has "no sense of decency." Here's Tammy's own ad that repsonding to Thompson's shamless and despicable smear:



Russ Feingold said, “Governor Thompson’s latest TV ad is a disgrace. He deliberately misrepresents Tammy Baldwin’s vote, and her strong opposition to playing politics with the 9/11 tragedy. It’s sad that former Governor Thompson is stooping so low to try to attract support. He’ll find that it just won’t work.”

In a press statement, Tammy quoted John Feal, a well respected 9/11 advocate who lost half of one foot at Ground Zero and runs the group the FealGood Foundation. “Tammy Baldwin was one of the first sponsors of our bill outside the New York area.  Her office was one of the ones helping us set up meetings when we couldn’t.

“I don’t think he’s right and he never should have brought something like that up, because it’s not true. She didn’t disagree because of that 9/11 part, she only disagreed to the other stuff that was added in later. I ended up coming home ill. I’ve had a rough time this year. Sometimes I can talk, sometimes I can’t. I’ve had pneumonia, and sinus infections and everything else. So, I’ve been sick, quite a bit,”said Judy Wolff, a Red Cross volunteer and Holmen native, who got ill after spending three weeks at Ground Zero.

For his own part, Thompson, who served as HHS Secretary for the Bush Administration, has been criticized by 9/11 first responders and New York’s Congressional delegation for not making health care a priority.

And after leaving HHS, Thompson then cashed in with a $11 million government contract to provide health care to 9/11 first responders, but left many of them without the care they were promised.

“Tommy Thompson is the product of the Bush administration, who wanted nothing to do with 9/11. When we went to Tommy Thompson in the Bush administration, to get health care funding he kept fighting us.  He’s making money off of 9/11, and he’s politicizing 9/11 for a campaign now, and to me he’s gone down a few notches on the scale of human beings,” Feal said.

In 2008 the Wisconsin State Journal reported, “The problem began in June, Wolff and others say, when Logistics Health Inc., of La Crosse, headed by former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, won an $11 million federal contract to provide medical care and health monitoring from the agency Thompson once led-- a decision that continues to raise eyebrows on Capitol Hill.”

They also reported:

“Dr. Jim Melius, chairman of the World Trade Center Medical Monitoring and Treatment Steering Committee, which coordinates care for 9/11 responders, said ‘I just don’t have any confidence that they (LHI) have the capacity or the understanding to do this,’ Melius said. ‘They are doing a disservice to these people. There are hundreds more in the medical treatment program and thousands more that need medical monitoring, and they’re not getting it.’”

The Associated Press reported: “A company run by an ex-Bush administration official and hired by the government to provide medical care to Sept. 11 recovery workers has been slow to take up the job, workers and advocates say. They also reported, “‘I have absolutely no help from anybody,’ said Ed Persico of Missoula, Mont., who was a Red Cross volunteer at a New York City landfill where the ground zero debris was examined for human remains.”

9/11 responders seem completely united against Thompson who-- as someone whose first and only instincts were to figure out how to personally profit from the tragedy-- has now lied about a political opponent who has always supported them fully and strenuously. FactCheck.org examined Thompson's ad and his claims and dubbed the ad "false and vicious"-- and that pretty much sums up what Wisconsin voters are seeing in a formerly popular, formerly mainstream governor. He moved away to Washington and now he's just plain false and vicious. And now even Republican strategists are ruing the day Thompson brought this up and started the ad war.

“I just watched them in order. Production quality of [Thompson]‘s ad is very good, the people talking are sincere, believable, seems like a very powerful hit. Then, I watched the response, seems to hit back very strongly and well. Soft spoken, sad, not over the top,” one top Republican media strategist said in an email to Roll Call. “While I thought the original was powerful, I think the response wins hands down, by not only calling [Thompson]‘s ad a cheap shot, but adding the seemingly devastating info about [Thompson] profiting so much from that very issue.”

The media strategist continued: “Wow. One would have to say that [Thompson's] team must have felt they needed to throw a long ball, because they had to consider the possibility of that response.”

The Blue America PAC only endorsed 3 candidates for Senate this cycle, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Tammy. Please watch Thompson's filth below and the consider helping Tammy win this one.

Lesson for the GOP (including you, Tommy Thompson): If you live by the high-priced lie, you better watch your butt

GOP slug Dan Lungren says: "What I'm trying to do is transform the system so people participating as candidates can be held responsible for what is said." Ha-ha-ha!

by Ken

My goodness, this would be hilarious if it were . . . no, let's go with hilarious. Here's the start of a report by the NYT's Jennifer Steinhauer and Jonathan Weisman, "Mauled by Ads, Incumbents Look to Declaw Outside Groups":

WASHINGTON -- An expansive onslaught of negative political advertisements in Congressional races has left many incumbents, including some Republicans long opposed to restrictions on campaign spending, concluding that legislative measures may be in order to curtail the power of the outside groups behind most of the attacks.

While Democrats have long denounced a 2010 Supreme Court decision that opened the gates on unlimited spending on advertisements, some Republicans are now growing more disenchanted with the system that has allowed the barrage of ads, often by shadowy groups, and the effects it has had on what they see as a sullen and disenchanted electorate.

"Once we get back, those that do get re-elected will all be commiserating about all the negative ads," said Representative Joe Heck of Nevada, a Republican who faced ads accusing him of voting against a rape crisis center and against money to help victims of domestic violence, among other things. "And that will start the groundswell for reform."

Representative Dan Lungren, a California Republican and the chairman the House Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over campaign finance issues, has been a target of negative advertisements. He has drafted legislation that he said would force more responsibility for the tone and messages of the campaign onto the candidates and the political parties and away from the third-party groups. The staff of Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, is also working on proposals.

The 2010 Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, was expected to be an unalloyed advantage to Republicans, who have a deeper bench of rich individuals and corporations willing to finance candidates.

The decision has appeared to benefit Republicans over all this election cycle, as Republican money has poured into the presidential contest. Democrats say their third-party allies have also been outspent, by about two to one, in Senate campaigns. But the impact of Citizens United has come with complications, with some Republican incumbents in the House at a disadvantage. . . .

Oh, there's more, like Representative Lungren, in his capacity as chairman of the House Administration Committee, explaining the aim of the bill he intends to craft when (if?) he gets back to D.C.: "What I'm trying to do is transform the system so people participating as candidates can be held responsible for what is said."

And, oh yes, there's that loathsome slug Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX),

who runs the group charged with electing Republicans to the Senate [and] has said he thinks it would be worthwhile to examine the campaign finance system after the election.

"Revisiting the federal fund-raising restrictions and coordinated limits on both parties, and even smaller, common-sense steps like requiring electronic filing for federal candidates are a few good things that could be looked at next year," he said in an e-mail.

Can you believe it? In the entire history of mankind, has any group of humans ever done more to smash the concept of political accountability than the House and Senate Republicans?

Of course that was before it began to dawn on these slugs that He Who Lives by the High-Priced Lie May Also Take It Up the Butt. Oh, I don't expect much in the way of meaningful reform. As the NYT reporters note, the expectation that Citizens United would be a massive boon to the vaunted GOP lie machine (OK, they don't use those exact words) has proved generally correct. But notice how touchy the R's become when, at least in their own view, they're the victims -- bearing in mind always that there's no screeching self-styled victim like a Republican screeching self-styled villain.


MEANWHILE, WILL TOMMY THOMPSON SPEARHEAD
A GOP CLEANSING -- BY ENDING HIS CANDIDACY?

The logic seems impeccable to me. Now that we've gotten to the point where it has to be assumed that every word out of the mouth of every Republican is a lie, doesn't someone have to take a stand and draw the line somewhere? And who better than that loathsome toad former WI Gov. Tommy Thompson, now the GOP candidate to retiring Dem Sen. Herb Kohl.

I can see it now. A solemn Tommy addressed the assembled press contingent:

Thank you for coming, ladies and gentlemen. I'll be brief. In the wake of the shocking debacle of my campaign's "Dangerous Path" TV ad shockingly impugning the patriotism of my opponent, I have come to the realization that I am too dishonest and corrupt to live, let alone occupy public office. Accordingly, I am ending my candidacy for the U.S. Senate and withdrawing from all forms of government service.

I am not withdrawing entirely from public life, however. I will continue to salt away all the corporate cash I can in my D.C. influence-peddling office.

If you're not caught up on the scandal of the Thompson campaign's appalling "Dangerous Path" spot, you can check out a new post by Eugene Kiely for the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org, "Smearing Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin Senate Race."

A false and vicious TV ad attacks Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin for voting against "honoring the victims of 9/11." The fact is, she voted to award three Congressional Gold Medals to honor the victims of the terrorist attacks in New York City, Virginia and Pennsylvania.

So what's the ad talking about? It cites her 2006 vote against a ceremonial resolution on the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11 -- which Baldwin opposed because she said the GOP-drafted resolution "politicized" the anniversary by praising controversial legislation, such as the USA Patriot Act.

The ad, called "Dangerous Path," is yet another attempt to cast Baldwin as an extremist in Wisconsin's close Senate race. (We recently wrote about another TV ad sponsored by a pro-Israel group.) This ad -- sponsored by her Republican opponent, former Gov. Tommy Thompson -- says her "far left approach leaves this country in jeopardy."

Thompson's ad features military veterans and shows an image of the hulking ruins of the World Trade Center in New York. One of the veterans says Baldwin "had the opportunity to vote to honor the victims of 9/11 and she voted against it." Another says, "It's a slap in the face to every one of their families and anyone who has ever served in the United States military." . . .

What this is, however, according to FactCheck.org, "is a case of cherry-picking a vote to distort the facts. Baldwin did honor the victims of the terrorist attacks."

What the smear job did, in brief, was to take a vote on what the Kiely report calls "a ceremonial House resolution" in 2006, in anticipation of the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Rep. Tammy Baldwin was one of only 22 House members to vote against a proposed tribute. What the Thompson-campaign ad leaves out, however, is her reason for doing so. Kiely quotes a Capital Times report from Sept. 14, 2006:

Baldwin and other Democratic critics said the resolution drafted by Republicans praised controversial legislation like the USA Patriot Act and a border security bill.

Baldwin contended the GOP "disgracefully politicized what should have been a solemn and sincere resolution."

"Instead they converted the resolution into an endorsement of the Patriot Act, punitive immigration bills, and other highly controversial measures, which many of my constituents oppose," she said in a statement explaining her vote.

She added it was disrespectful to the Sept. 11 victims and families to be "playing election year politics" with the anniversary.

Oops!

Of course Tammy can always be counted on to support legitimate 9/11 commemorations.

I suppose the Thompson-campaign brain trust is contemplating the necessity of some sort of weasel-worded non-apology. Wouldn't it be nice, though, if instead the governor came through with the sort of announcement I've fantasized above? Isn't it time for somebody to draw the line in the bullshit?

#

Tammy vs Tommy In Wisconsin-- Is Romney Dragging Down The Whole GOP Ticket?

I suspect that if Tammy wins in November-- and current polls suggest she will-- the moment that will go down in history that lost the race for Tommy Thompson was when he bragged "Who better than me to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid?" Right now, he's in full etch-a-sketch mode, claiming he just wants to make some adjustments and save the programs. Uh, huh. That's what his friend Lyin' Ryan says too and the voucher program that ends Medicare. And his new line of attack is that cool, collected, caring Tammy is an extremist. That's not going to fly and when Politifact checks the two candidates' statements they found that Tammy tells the truth and Thompson lies. 

Tammy's voting record is one of the most consistently pro-working family voting records in the country. Even among other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, her record stands out as exemplary. That's why the Koch brothers and Rove and working extra hard for Thompson; they really hate Tammy. Last week PolitiFact had a new story on the Congressional Progressive Caucus's People's latest Budget, which would eliminate the deficit in 10 years by investing in millions of jobs. The People's Budget offered a different path than the Ryan Congress, whose budget cut over 2.2 million jobs in just two years. It's the difference between the failed Austerity Agenda of Europe and a fresh American approach, pretty much identical to Jacob Hacker's Prosperity Economics. Politifact's conclusion: Thompson is either an out-of-touch fool or an out-and-out liar.

"In fact she is so liberal-- I don’t know if people out there really know this-- she joined the Progressive Caucus, which introduced a budget that spent trillions-- not billions, trillions-- more money than the Obama budget."

In the same vein, Thompson during the debate called Baldwin the House’s "number one spender" and alluded to her support of "increased spending" with the Progressive Caucus budget.

Let’s see if Thompson’s right about the trillions... The fiscal 2012 budget proposed by the Progressive Caucus was what Thompson was referring to when he made his trillions more comment about Baldwin, Thompson campaign spokeswoman Lisa Boothe told us.

That plan, unveiled in April 2011, was offered as an alternative to budgets proposed by President Barack Obama and by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee.

Baldwin did vote for the caucus budget, which was introduced as an amendment to Ryan’s budget. The amendment failed in the House, 347-77. The Progressive Caucus budget would have spent $44.5 trillion from 2012 to 2021, according to an analysis done for the caucus by the labor-backed Economic Policy Institute.

To see how that compared with Obama’s plan over 10 years, we contacted experts from two nonpartisan think tanks: Taxpayers for Common Sense, a government spending watchdog; and the Concord Coalition, which seeks balanced federal budgets.

They agreed that Obama’s fiscal 2012 spending plan called for $46 trillion in spending.

That’s $1.5 trillion more than the Progressive Caucus Budget.

So, Thompson was wrong when he said the Baldwin-backed caucus would spend "trillions more" than Obama’s budget.

Thompson has said, in prepared statements before and after his radio interview, that the Progressive Caucus budget would have raised trillions more in taxes than Obama’s budget. And our experts agreed the caucus budget would have collected $42 trillion in taxes over 10 years, some $5 trillion more than Obama’s.

But that wasn’t Thompson’s claim on the radio.

What’s more, raising taxes doesn’t automatically mean a corresponding increase in spending. Indeed, The Economist magazine, among others, pointed out the Progressive Caucus budget would have reduced federal deficits more than both the Obama and Ryan budgets -- primarily because of its higher taxes and cuts in defense spending.

Thompson claimed Baldwin supported the Progressive Caucus budget, which he said spent "trillions more" than a budget from Obama.

Baldwin did back the proposal, which would have raised taxes by trillions more than the president. But the caucus plan would have actually spent less money than the Obama plan.

We rate Thompson’s statement False.

 

Last week we saw the ninth poll confirming Thompson’s sagging fortunes even after Thompson and special interests supporting him have spent over $3 million just since the last Marquette poll. Wisconsin voters aren't buying it and Tammy is maintaining her lead. Thompson has blamed Romney for his fall in the polls despite an outpouring of Republican criticism of Thompson and his campaign, with many raising questions about Thompson’s lack of effort on the campaign trail.

Friday, the Wisconsin Gazette endorsed Tammy, "easily the best candidate for the U.S. Senate." 

Baldwin is unimpeachably one of the most genuine, intelligent and committed lawmakers serving in the U.S. Capitol today. Every day of her career as a public servant-- and that is quite literally how she views herself-- Baldwin has demonstrated her support for the middle class and for such traditional values as social justice, economic opportunity, access to education and health care, individual liberty and tolerance.

Early in her congressional career, Baldwin was one of the few members of Congress to oppose lifting the Glass-Steagall Act, which since the Great Depression had kept banks from engaging in the kinds of risky practices that led to the worldwide 2008 economic collapse. She stood up for Wisconsin homeowners by stopping the Justice Department from granting immunity to big banks guilty of mortgage fraud. Ultimately, the banks were forced to pay billions of dollars to victims of their unethical practices.

Blustery and boastful in temperament, Thompson is the polar opposite of the warm, soft-spoken Baldwin. In his heyday, Thompson was a moderate whose political success was built on compromise. He created BadgerCare, which helped low-income earners obtain affordable health care coverage.

But the Thompson of today is not the popular governor that older Wisconsinites remember. During the Republican primary, he positioned himself as a hardline conservative, promising tea party extremists that he would act as an obstructionist if elected. Since then, he has taken to labeling himself alternately a conservative or a moderate, depending on the audience. He is as disingenuous as Baldwin is authentic.

Thompson left Wisconsin in debt despite presiding over a period of great national economic expansion. He took the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services in George W. Bush’s administration. After leaving that job, he capitalized shamelessly on the connections he’d made, shilling for pharmaceutical companies in which he had financial stakes. Among his gifts to the drug industry was changing federal law to make it illegal for Medicare to negotiate with them for lower costs. That put affordable, life-saving drugs out of reach for millions of middle- and lower-income seniors, but it helped to make Thompson $13 million richer.

Now 70 and somewhat worse for the wear after years of notorious hard living, he’s back in Wisconsin pretending to be a farmer. During the Sept. 28 debate, Thompson had the temerity to depict himself as loving and devoted family man and a Washington outsider, one of the more audacious distortions of reality heard this election cycle.

Tellingly, Thompson has refused to release even one year of his tax returns since 1997. But of even more concern is his inability to articulate why he’s running for office, other than to offer the obligatory political promises de jour of wanting to create jobs and lower taxes, without explaining how.

Like GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Thompson would sacrifice the nation’s future as a whole for the short-term financial benefits of a very few, themselves included. Beyond cutting taxes for the uber rich, a strategy that has failed to deliver the promised economic bonanza for more than 30 years, Thompson and Romney have not laid a single job-creating proposal on the table.

Baldwin, on the other hand, would help to reinvigorate the economy by investing in critical infrastructure and education needs.

Baldwin, who has released all of her tax returns, has not enriched herself through public employment as Thompson has. Instead, she has enriched the lives of those she has served by faithfully representing their interests, by standing up to the greedy and the powerful and opposing GOP policies that have pushed the American dream farther and farther from the grasp of average individuals.

Baldwin would be a stellar choice for the U.S. Senate regardless of her opponent, but this race is not even close. Thompson just isn’t in the same league. He’s running to run, while she’s running to make a difference.

Blue America has only endorsed two challengers (plus one incumbent) in this year's Senate match-ups-- and one of them in Tammy. If you can, we urge you to consider a contribution to her grassroots campaign today. President Obama is way ahead in Wisconsin and Tammy has a solid lead as well. We're hoping between the two of them, the coattails will be strong enough to help Rob Zerban defeat Paul Ryan in the first congressional district. We've managed to raise $15,000 for Tammy so far and we'd like to double that by election day. It's a good investment.

We Need More Balance In The Senate

Gee willikers, I sure don't want to see Miss McConnell setting the agenda in the Senate next year. Is that enough of a reason to vote for some exceptionally putrid Democratic candidates? Reactionary corporate whore Joe Manchin in West Virginia? Reactionary Blue Dog Joe Donnelly in Indiana who's anti-Choice, anti-gay and anti-just about everything that has anything to do with being a Democrat?  Corrupt and reactionary Shelley Berkley in Nevada? Pandering business shill Tim Kaine in Virginia? Without victories in these states, the GOP will capture the Senate. But how do you pull a lever for any of these excruciatingly horrible candidates? I couldn't. 

I live in California, where Dianne Feinstein will be reelected by a landslide without anyone having to break a sweat, including Di-Fi. I first came across her when she was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and I knew then I would never vote for her for anything... ever! I ever helped Jello Biafra run against her for mayor. And I've never voted for her in any of her many races. And I never will. But would I if there was a chance she would lose and trigger a Republican takeover of the Senate? Well... she's not as bad as Manchin or Donnelly... but I'd hold out to the last second and probably make up my mind in the voting booth. I'd really disappoint myself if I ever voted for her.

The Senate is a screwed up, systemically anti-democratic body to begin with. I think it should be abolished entirely... or made into a strictly ceremonial branch. They could wear white powdered wigs and argue with each other or something. But the U.S. Senate was designed right from the git-go to thwart the popular will and that's the one thing it ever actually achieves. Me wanting it to be abolished isn't going to get it abolished, though, so we're very careful around here to just endorse proven progressives who we feel certain have the potential to make the Senate a better place. 

The only incumbent Blue America is raising money for this cycle is Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders. And we have two challengers we're trying to help, Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin. I'd walk over broken glass for either of them-- which isn't exactly how I feel about a wretch like Claire McCaskill (MO), a corporate shill like Tom Carper (DE) or Ben Nelson-wannabe like Bob Kerrey (NE). The Democrats have an especially horrendous lineup this year... one horrible candidate after another. And that just makes Bernie, Elizabeth and Tammy stand out all the more.

And currently all three are leading in the polls. 4 came out in Massachusetts showing Elizabeth leading... and then the GOP polling arm, Rasmussen rushed one out showing Republican incumbent Scott Brown tying her. Even voters in Massachusetts who are fond of Scott Brown, for whatever reason, are cognizant that voting for him means voting to put Miss McConnell in charge of the Senate... and no one wants to see that happen. Watch Elizabeth defining "a balanced approach" towards how we move forward politically as a nation in the video below. If she can explain that approach to Senate Democrats next year... maybe we should keep the institution and give it another try.

But Scott Brown isn't giving up the cushy job that has brought him so much love from Wall Street banksters. They're afraid of Elizabeth and they're encouraging Brown to appeal to lo-info white working class males by beating up on Elizabeth and going full on misogynist pig. Should be interesting watching how that works for him.

Call it Scott Brown vs. Elizabeth Warren 2.0.

With polls showing the liberal consumer advocate inching ahead of the Republican incumbent, the marquee Massachusetts Senate race is entering a defining new phase.

Brown is shedding his Mr. Nice Guy image and going on the attack. Warren is trying to make the race a referendum on a potential Republican Senate and less about personality-- a contest she’d have difficulty winning against the likable, everyman Brown.

The fresh approaches are indicative of a shift of the contours of the campaign in Warren’s favor, as Democrats begin to come home to support the first-time candidate in a blue state primed to deliver a massive margin of victory to President Barack Obama.

Since giving a prime time speech at the Democratic National Convention more than two weeks ago, the former Harvard professor has seized on the party energy ginned up in Charlotte. Boston Mayor Tom Menino’s wholehearted endorsement of her at a lively rally before several hundred supporters Friday afternoon added an exclamation point to that unity.

Warren’s debate performance Thursday night was roundly praised and marked a turn toward a sunnier manner that has helped quell complaints about her proclivity for preachiness.

Conversely, after months of warm ads showcasing the senator as a down-to-earth family man and consensus-seeking moderate, Brown debuted a more combative strategy during the debate. The senator’s invective toward Warren only accelerated over the weekend during numerous campaign stops.

And what about that video, up top? Did you watch that? That's the bumbling DC lobbyist and ex-Governor of Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson, who's running against Tammy. He's explaining the an audience why there's no one better than him to "do away with Medicaid and Medicare."

Who better than me, who’s already finished one of the entitlement programs, to come up with programs to do away with Medicaid and Medicare? Let’s block-grant what the state has, and allow the states to determine what’s going to go into Medicaid. And Medicare, let’s wait until everyone that right now is under 55 reaches 55 by age 2020, and give them a choice whether they want to purchase health insurance with a subsidy from the federal government, or stay on Medicare.

If you'd like to help make the Senate a better place... there's a page for that.

GOP Chances For Taking Back The Senate Dying With Romney's Campaign?

Yesterday Ed Gillespie sighed that "the map is shrinking." He was talking about Romney's diminishing chances to win any of the swing states. New polling continues to paint an ever dimmer picture for him. Oh, he'll win the Deep South and the Mormon states but it doesn't look like he can count on much else. But it's what the recent turn of events is doing for Republican prospects to win the Senate and make Miss McConnell Majority Leader that is freaking out Republicans this week. As i was writing this yesterday a fresh batch of polls came across the transom from NBC/ Wall Street Journal/Marist showing that among likely voters Colorado was shaping up to give Obama 50% and Romney 45%; Iowa Obama 50% and Romney 42%;  and Wisconsin, home of Paul Ryan, Obama 50%, Romney 45%. That's what Gillespie meant by a shrinking map. And that same Marist poll confirms what other polls have shown this week, that Tammy Baldwin has pulled ahead of Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin as well.

Thompson's campaign is getting ugly and looking desperate. They've already descended into schoolyard name-calling and now they're claiming he's losing because of Romney. And he changed his mind about the polling firm. He hates them too.

August 19, 2012

Tommy Thompson Said He Would Help Carry Wisconsin for Mitt Romney And That The Marquette University Poll Was The “Gold Standard”

Thompson Said He Would Help Romney In Wisconsin. In an interview with Mike Gousha on August 19, Thompson said: “I am an individual that is going to be able to be helpful to that ticket. “ [Up Front with Mike Gousha, 8/19/2012]

Thompson Called The Marquette Poll The “Gold Standard.” In an interview in August 2012, Thompson said: “I think the Marquette poll which is considered pretty much the golden rule or the gold standard, came out and says I was 8 points up.  So, I feel very good about going in, and I sincerely believe the momentum is with me and I feel very comfortable about the election.”  [WKOW, Capital City Sunday, 8/12/2012]

September 19, 2012

Tommy Thompson Blamed Romney For Sagging Poll Numbers and Attacked Marquette University Poll

Thompson Blames Romney for Sagging Poll Numbers. WKOW reported that “Thompson hopes Romney's sagging numbers don't bring him down as well. ‘The Presidential thing is bound to have an impact on every election.  Whether you're a Democrat or Republican.  If you're a standard-bearer for the Presidency is not doing well, it’s gonna reflect on the down ballot,’ said Thompson.” [WKOW, 9/19/2012]

Thompson dismissed the MU results. Thompson's spokeswoman, Lisa Boothe, attempted to discredit the Marquette poll. "We do not think it reflects the opinions of Wisconsin voters," Boothe said. But on Tuesday at a Milwaukee manufacturing plant, the former governor expressed confidence in the accuracy of Marquette's survey work. [Associated Press, Mount Pleasant Patch and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 9/19/2012]

The NY Times' political statistician, Nate Silver, dealt with Thompson's unraveling campaign as well... and how other Republican campaigns are on the rocks as well. "Polls," he writes, "show key races shifting decisively toward the Democrats, with the Republican position deteriorating almost by the day. The Senate races in Wisconsin and Virginia are especially in bad shape.

It would be only a modest exaggeration to say that it’s been hard to find any strong Senate polls for Republicans in the past two or three weeks. Wednesday also brought bad news for Republicans in Massachusetts, where a fourth consecutive poll showed the Democrat Elizabeth Warren ahead of Senator Scott Brown; in Connecticut, where a poll gave the Democrat Chris Murphy a slight advantage over their candidate, Linda McMahon; and in Florida, where a Fox News poll gave the Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson a 14-point lead. ...[O]ver the past two weeks of the Republicans’ position in Virginia, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Florida and Ohio, all of which have broken sharply to the Democrats.

The Democrats’ chances of controlling the Senate have increased to 79 percent in the forecast, up from 70 percent on Tuesday.

Had we run the model a month ago, based on polls through Aug. 19, the Democrats’ chances of maintaining Senate control would have been listed at just 39 percent.

The velocity of the change is unusual. Although Senate races in different parts of the country can sometimes move in the same direction, there was never quite this rapid a shift in our Senate forecasts in 2008 or 2010.

The forecast model is not doing anything particularly fancy; it’s just that an overwhelming number of Senate polls recently have shown the Democratic candidates’ standing improving.

Republicans could also have some reason to be concerned about Nevada, which has not been polled recently but where their candidate, the appointed Senator Dean Heller, maintains a slight advantage over the Democratic Representative Shelley Berkeley. Mr. Heller is a fairly strong candidate, but if there is some sort of national tide against Republicans, he could become the underdog in that race as well.

...I can think of two major theories to explain why the shift is occurring, one focused on Mitt Romney, and another on the overall positioning of the Republican brand.

Theory No. 1: Is Romney a Downballot Drag?

Polls show that Mr. Romney has middling personal favorability ratings but that many voters will choose him anyway because of the deteriorating economy.

Senate races, however, are less dictated by national economic conditions. Instead, they often turn more on the strengths and weaknesses of the individual candidates, and then by their stances on fiscal and social policy.

Mr. Romney has not dictated much in the way of detailed programs in these areas, and some of the policy stances that he has articulated are unpopular.

Mr. Romney has also been less able to campaign effectively against an unpopular Democratic initiative, the Democrats’ health care bill, because he passed a similar bill as governor of Massachusetts.

Finally, some voters who disapprove of Mr. Obama, but who also have lukewarm feelings toward Mr. Romney, might lean toward voting Democrat for Senate in effort to ensure divided government, especially since Republicans also have control of the House.

Theory No. 2: G.O.P. Conservatism Is Hurting

An alternative hypothesis is that the shift has to do with overall perceptions of the Republican platform.

Our research has shown that statistical measures of candidate ideology are a reasonably powerful predictor of the outcome of Senate races, with candidates who are rated as holding “extreme” views performing poorly.

But in practice, ideology is in large part perceptual for voters, and may depend on which issues seem most salient at any given time.

August, at which point the shift toward Democrats in Senate races appeared to begin, was dominated by two major news items: Mr. Romney’s selection of Representative Paul D. Ryan as his running mate, who has very conservative views on fiscal policy, and by the comments about rape made by the Republican Senate candidate in Missouri, Todd Akin, which may have reinforced the idea that Republicans hold very conservative positions on social issues.

These factors may have made it harder for Republicans to position themselves toward the ideological center. And in several states, including Missouri, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio, Republicans nominated sub-optimally conservative candidates.

More moderate Republican candidates, like Mr. Brown of Massachusetts and Mrs. McMahon of Connecticut, have increasingly sought to distance themselves from the national Republican brand, and sometimes also from the Republican presidential ticket.

It doesn't seem to be working for either Brown or McMahon; both are currently losing to their Democratic opponents. And, most shocking of all, so is Rep. Jeff Flake in Arizona. The open Jon Kyl seat is very competitive at this point and voters are leaning towards Democrat Richard Carmona. A few weeks ago a poll showed Flake up by one point but KTVK-Channel 3 in Phoenix reports that a new poll shows him pulling away.

The results of a surprising new poll in the U.S. Senate race were released Wednesday showing Democrat Richard Carmona beating his Republican rival. 

The survey, which was conducted by a GOP-friendly firm, shows Carmona holding a 5-point edge over Jeff Flake. 

Heading into the race, Flake was considered the heavy favorite to win in a state where Republicans hold a comfortable registration advantage over Democrats. 

Officials with Flake's campaign declined to comment on the poll. But Flake's spokesman, Andrew Wilder, said, "We've always known this race is going to be a close one. That's why Jeff Flake is working hard to gain the trust of voters." 

But a spokesman for Carmona's camp said they were pleased. 

"We don't put too much weight in any poll, but this confirms what our campaign has been saying all along," said spokesman Andy Barr. "Dr. Carmona is a unique candidate with a background that appeals to Independents, Republicans, and Democrats." 

Specifically, the numbers show Carmona with 44 percent and Flake with 39. But 16 percent of those questioned said they were undecided.

If Carmona wins in Arizona, still far from a certainty, the Democrats would be in position to win a filibuster-proof Senate in 2014-- or if one of the living corpses like Chuck Grassley or Richard Shelby is called home to their Maker... or if Orrin Hatch goes off to Kolob prematurely.

Blue America has endorsed only 3 candidates for Senate this year. We're being very strict about demonstrable commitment to progressive values. If you can, please help elect the only three who have met our almost-impossible standards.

Romney Sets A Bad Example For Other Republicans With Shady Financial Dealings Who Want To Run For Office

You may have seen Ayn Romney on TV the other day whining about the plebeians wanting to see her husband's tax returns. She came across as a very, very dislikable character, a real Marie Antoinette type, someone you;d expect to have a dancing horse and charge the public for its upkeep. She insists they're not releasing any more taxes, have done nothing illegal and have nothing to hide... and that people just have to trust her husband because... well, because he's so trustworthy. “Have you seen how we've been attacked... We have been very transparent to what’s legally required of us. But the more we release, the more we get attacked,” she said.

The Romneys are coming off as even more disgusting than anyone might have thought. They're like the new avatars of greed, selfishness, self-righteousness and repulsive entitlement. Last week Robert Reich said that even if you can believe Romney's unsupported claims about having paid 13% annually, his returns "violate the principle of equal sacrifice that lies at the core of our notion of tax fairness."

Equal sacrifice means that in paying taxes people ought to feel about the same degree of pain regardless of whether they’re wealthy or poor. Logically, this means someone earning $20 million a year should pay a much larger proportion of his income in taxes than someone earning $200,000, who in turn should pay a larger proportion than someone earning $50,000.

But Romney’s alleged 13 percent tax rate is lower than that of most middle class Americans who earn a tiny fraction of what he earns.

At a time when poverty is increasing, when public parks and public libraries are being closed and when public schools are shrinking their offerings and their hours, when the nation’s debt is immense, and when the 400 richest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million of us put together-- Romney’s 13 percent is shameful.

If you didn't already watch the video up top, now would be the perfect time to take a look at another self-entitled conservative slug, Beltway lobbyist Tommy Thompson, just saying NO to releasing any tax returns. If Romney can get away with it, so can he. Thompson has gotten very rich as a DC influence peddler but he doesn't want Wisconsin voters looking too closely at his shady business dealings. He specialized in giving cover to corporations that shipped U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas and worked hard to get tax breaks for special interests that showered him in personal wealth.

"Corporate special interests made Tommy Thompson a millionaire and now he wants to go to the Senate to continue to deliver for them. As Wisconsin voters learn more about Tommy Thompson's intimate ties to the special interests that made him rich, they'll see that Thompson is not on their side anymore," said Matt Canter, spokesman for the DSCC. "In the Senate, Tommy Thompson would benefit himself and the same corporate special interests that made him rich. Thompson would cut taxes for the rich and pay for it by hiking taxes on the middle-class, ending Medicare, and privatizing Social Security. The consequences of those policies would be devastating for Wisconsin families." Mike Tate, chairman of the Wisconsin Democratic Party couldn't agree more:

"When he was governor, Tommy Thompson used to release his tax returns, now that he has been a D.C. lobbyist he flies off the handle when asked to do the same-- what has changed about his finances that he now wants to keep them hidden? At a time when Thompson is advocating a plan that would raise taxes on the middle class in order to cut them on millionaires such as himself, the people of Wisconsin have a right to know just how much he would benefit from his millionaire tax cut plan."

PolitiFact actually confirms the charges against him. "It's clear that Thompson has sold his influence and connections to firms to whom it would benefit on Capitol Hill, but did so in a way-- as a consultant-- to avoid having to register... Thompson's tax plan would cut taxes by $87,000 for the top 1 percent." Even worse, Thompson's plan would raise taxes on the average middle-class family by $2,000 each year and force deep cuts into Medicare and Social Security in order to fund its millionaire tax breaks. After spending years in D.C. as a lobbyist and influence peddler, Tommy Thompson is now running for Senate on a platform of creating new tax loopholes for himself and people like him while balancing the budget on the backs of middle-class families and Wisconsin seniors.

Ironically, if Thompson has become something of a poster boy for the destruction of the American middle-class-- shipping their jobs overseas while rejiggering the tax code to benefit the very wealthy and put an unbearable burden on struggling workers-- he's now running against a woman who's entire public career has been dedicated to working for the interests of ordinary working families, Tammy Baldwin. When Blue America looked around for candidates to support for the U.S. Senate this cycle, only one incumbent, Bernie Sanders, and two challengers, Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin, met our high standards. Last week we helped Tammy raise money with her CheddarBomb. Thompson's corporate allies are pouring millions of dollars into his campaign. If you can help Tammy, please consider a contribution here.

Tammy Baldwin's Cheddar Bomb

Although DC lobbyist Tommy Thompson is a little long in the tooth (and thought to be somewhat senile and confused by younger Republicans) to be running for a freshman seat in the Senate, that was hardly the biggest irony of the night-- nor was his desperation yesterday in closing his campaign with endorsements from Ted Nugent and Joe the Plumber. "Dr. No," as he was known when he was minority leader of the state Assembly, lost his first run for Congress (1979) but won the governorship in 1986 and was reelected 3 times. His signature health care program, BadgerCare, is relatively progressive and very popular, although these days Republicans hate anything with the word "Care" attached to it-- and last night he was almost defeated by right-wing extremist, millionaire hedge fund bankster.

The results were pretty tight last night. Thompson took 34%, Hovde 31%, teabagger and perennial candidate Mark Neumann 23% and Jeff Fitzgerald, Walker's crony, 12%. There's been a lot of bad blood as well.

It's ironic that on the 77th anniversary of FDR signing the Social Security bill, 4 furiously anti-Social Security Republicans would cut themselves to ribbons, further helping the one staunch defender of Social Security in particular and working families in general, Tammy Baldwin. One of the most trusted political leaders in Wisconsin, state Senator Chris Larson, who helped organize the Wisconsin state Senate walkout. Last night he told us that "Tammy Baldwin is the kind of progressive leader America needs more of. The Koch brothers and their allies are already trying to tear her down. Tammy is not afraid of the fight and she never has. She knows there are strong progressives ready to stand with her to ensure our democracy is for the people and never for sale."

And that's why Blue America is getting behind Tammy's CheddarBomb today, something that Russ Feingold thought up originally but that progressives from around the country are helping out with now. Tammy worked closely with Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) on behalf of ordinary working families. As head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, of which Tammy is a member, Raúl observed her commitment to progressive goals and principles-- including when times were tough. "You already know Tammy Baldwin shares the values that make our movement so great and so important," he told me this morning. "What you don't know is that she's as decent and straightforward as anyone you can find in Tucson. Her friendship, advice and hard work have been a great personal and professional example of how a member of Congress represents both her constituents and her own conscience. I'm very proud of my friendship with Tammy. I'll miss her in the House of Representatives next year. But the Senate needs her more, and I couldn't be happier to support her on her way to a big win for all of us in November."

Let's not forget that on all the fundamental issues of the day, Tammy and Thompson stand on opposing sides. He vehemently anti-Choice for example and she has a 100% record of standing up for the right of women to make their own choices without government interference. Here's what Tammy had to say after the ballots were counted last night:

"Tonight, the Republican primary electorate presented Wisconsin voters with a clear choice for the November election. Make no mistake, Tommy Thompson will stand with those who already have too much power and influence in Washington.
 
"I will fight to do what's right for the middle class and Thompson will put those at the very top and the big monied special interests in Washington ahead of Wisconsin's hard working families. I will take on these powerful interests in Washington, and in the Senate, I will stand up for Wisconsin's middle class, as I always have. 
 
"Unlike Tommy Thompson, I will fight for Wisconsin's middle class by working across party lines to move our economic recovery forward-- working to build a 'Made in Wisconsin' manufacturing economy; providing tax cuts for small business to fuel job creation; ending tax breaks for outsourcing and giving companies tax incentives to create jobs here at home. That is the road to a stronger middle class, a stronger Wisconsin, and brighter future.
 
"I believe Wisconsin deserves a US Senator who is unafraid to take on the big moneyed special interests in Washington. And I believe that the middle class needs someone fighting for them to make sure they have a fair shot at the American dream. 
 
"Tommy Thompson disagrees and he couldn't be more wrong. 
 
"Tommy Thompson supports the policies of the past. Policies that have failed. Policies from the past that crashed our economy, and got us into our fiscal mess in the first place. He believes we should slash the very investments we need to move our economy forward, in education, innovation, and infrastructure-- all while cutting taxes for those at the very top. 
 
"Tommy Thompson would actually cut taxes for millionaires like himself while increasing taxes on the middle class, increasing out-of-pocket health care costs for seniors, increasing the cost of higher education for students and their families, and ending Medicare as we know it for future generations. 

"That is not the America we believe in and it is not the Wisconsin we believe in. I believe that path is wrong for Wisconsin, wrong for our nation, and that we need to do what's right for the middle class."

We agree and we urge everyone to dig deep today-- CheddarBomb day-- and contribute to Tammy's campaign here on the Blue America Senate page. We looked over all the candidates and all the incumbents who are running and so far our enthusiasm was only strong enough for 3 endorsements, Tammy and two others.

Tommy Thompson... Serial Apologist

Tommy Thompson, who's running for the open Wisconsin Senate seat, will have just passed his 71st birthday on election day-- if he gets through a cutthroat primary of extreme right wing zealots also looking for that career step. He's leading the GOP field-- although is the third choice among Tea Party Republicans-- primarily because Wisconsin Republicans remember him as their 4-term governor (1987-2001)... and for his role in creating the BadgerCare health system, anathema to modern-day Republicans of the Paul Ryan school of Law of the Jungle Republicans. Running against the pack of extremists-- who are packed by shady, big money, far right groups-- Thompson has been pushed uncomfortably to the right, much the way Romney was pushed ever rightward-- and is now unacceptable to mainstream Americans-- by Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Cain, et al. Lately Thompson has taken to blasting President Obama for apologizing on behalf of the United States for the inadvertent burning of a Koran in Afghanistan by the American government.

As our friends at American Bridge pointed out to us, Thompson knows a lot about apologizing. Last time he ran for office-- president, I think-- he was forced to apologize for offensive comments to both Jews and the LGBT community. The President was fulfilling his duty as chief executive of the U.S. government in a diplomatic capacity. What was Tommy's excuse?

A faulty hearing aid, a cold, fatigue, a leaky bladder... anything but pandering to the nuts in his own party.

His Jewish problem stems from a 2007 series of clumsy boo-boos that offended Jewish leaders. He said making money is “part of the Jewish tradition,” called Israel Bonds “Jewish Bonds” and the Anti-Defamation League the “Jewish Defense League” at the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism’s biennial Consultation on Conscience.

Ironically, though, it was one speaker’s botched joke about the stereotypical lack of poverty among Jews that ended up drawing a great deal of attention. Republican presidential candidate Tommy Thompson began his speech by saying that after 38 years in government, the former Wisconsin governor was for the first time in the private sector and earning money. That, he said, is ‘sort of part of the Jewish tradition, and I do not find anything wrong with that. I enjoy that.’ Once Thompson finished his half-hour talk, RAC director Rabbi David Saperstein alerted him to the crowd’s murmurings. Returning to the podium, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services said he didn’t "want to infer or imply anything about Jews and finances." He said, rather, that he was referring to "the accomplishments of the Jewish religion and the Jewish people. You have been outstanding business people and I compliment you for that and if anybody took what I said wrong, I apologize. I may have mischaracterized it. You are very successful. I applaud you for that."

He seemed bent out of shape when reporters questioned him about this later.

"I was tired, I made a mistake and I apologized," Thompson told a group of Politico reporters and editors in an interview.

"Have you ever made a mistake?," a testy Thompson demanded of this reporter.

Right around the same time, he was onto insulting gays and lesbians with his conservative stereotypes, claiming in a debate that employers who didn't like gays should be allowed to fire them without cause. That's patently illegal. As you can see in the video up top, he said it was because of a faulty hearing aid. The Associated Press also reported it was because he had to go pee-pee.

Tommy Thompson cited a dead hearing aid and an urgent need to use the bathroom in explaining on Saturday why he said at a GOP presidential debate that an employer should be allowed to fire a gay worker. Speaking to reporters after giving an address at the state GOP convention, Thompson also said he was suffering from the flu and bronchitis and had been admitted to a hospital emergency room three days prior to the May 3 debate. "Nobody knows that," Thompson said. "I’ve been very sick... I was very sick the day of the debate. I had all of the problems with the flu and bronchitis that you have, including running to the bathroom. I was just hanging on. I could not wait until the debate got off so I could go to the bathroom."

He also said he's deaf in one ear and the hearing aid in the other ear went dead. What a mess-- just like his campaign. He soon withdrew... without a ripple. So now he wants to run for the Senate seat left open by retiring Democrat Herb Kohl. Kohl immediately endorsed Rep. Tammy Baldwin, who-- if she wins in November-- will be the first woman to hold a Senate seat from Wisconsin and the first openly gay person ever elected to the U.S. Senate from anywhere. If you'd like to make sure it's Tammy who holds that seat-- and not lumbering old Tommy Thompson, you can contribute to her campaign at the Blue America ActBlue page here.

Here's the ad the far right Club For Growth Is currently running in Wisconsin:

Wisconsin Democrats United Behind Tammy Baldwin While The State GOP Erupts In Full-Scale War Between 3 Crackpots

Last Wednesday we looked at how the Tea Party has set out to destroy the political careers of mainstream conservatives Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT). But they aren't the only relatively mainstream Republican conservatives the Tea Party has declared war on. While every faction of the Wisconsin Democratic Party has rallied behind progressive Rep. Tammy Baldwin, the far right of that state's GOP is excited about stopping the state's former governor, Tommy Thompson, with either of two far right extremists, Mark Neumann or Jeff Fitzgerald. This looks like it could get really ugly. The Club for Growth is leading the charge against Thompson. Along with Jim DeMint, they're firmly behind Mark Neumann (the original Paul Ryan). Fitzgerald, the widely loathed Assembly Speaker, says both Thompson and Neumann are DC insiders.

Fitzgerald is also the candidate who is the closest to Gov. Scott Walker, having helped to pass Gov. Scott Walker’s anti-public employee union legislation, in the midst of an environment of massive protests and the beginnings of the recall campaign. By contrast, Thompson has been largely out of the state’s political scene-- and Neumann ran against Walker in the 2010 gubernatorial primary, in an attempted comeback after his own narrow loss in the 1998 Senate race against Democratic incumbent Russ Feingold.

The primary is also a long way off-- all the way in August 2012. Although it is obviously early, polling of the primary has shown Thompson ahead, but with a plurality rather a majority, over a divided opposition-- suggesting that he could be vulnerable.

Thompson has had a long and successful career in Wisconsin politics, but has not been on a ballot since 1998. He was first elected to the state Assembly in 1966, eventually becoming the Republican minority leader. He was elected governor in 1986, then re-elected in 1990, 1994 and 1998, before joining President George W. Bush’s cabinet in 2001. He left the cabinet after the 2004 election, and briefly sought the Republican nomination for president in 2007, only to withdraw after a poor showing in the Ames Straw Poll.

Thompson was long courted by the GOP to run for Senate in various cycles, but never made the jump-- he came very close in 2010, but ultimately backed away.

And now that he’s in, the Club For Growth has him right on their target list, attacking him as a moderate or even liberal Republican. Indeed, even before Thompson got in, the Club was already on TV attacking him:



“Club members and economic and fiscal conservatives are strongly behind Mark Neumann in this race. Mark Neumann was one of the strongest, most pro-growth members of Congress when he served. And the Club is going to make sure that he has the resources he needs to be the Republican nominee,” Club spokesman Barney Keller told TPM.

“And we intend to aggressively educate voters on Tommy Thompson's record of supporting Obamacare, and of massively raising spending and taxes when he was governor. And we think the more Republican voters know about Tommy Thompson’s record, the less likely they’ll be to support him.”

Keller also made clear that the Club will go full bore in taking on Thompson: “By the end of this primary, not a single Republican voter won’t know that Tommy Thompson supported Obamacare, and supported massive tax and spending increases. And anything Tommy Thompson says is just a distraction from his failed record of supporting higher taxes and spending.”

The Club’s “Obamacare” attack on Thompson is based on a series of positive statements that Thompson made about the topic of health care reform in 2009-- most notably, a pair of joint statements that Thompson and former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt released in October and November 2009-- the latter just as the Senate was about to vote on beginning formal debate on the bill-- offering some qualified praise to the Senate health care bill, and calling for a bipartisan consensus on the issue. The earlier statement in October also said: “Failure to reach an agreement on health reform this year is not an acceptable option.”

However, Thompson was not solidly on Obama’s side, either. In October 2009, he appeared on Fox News with Neil Cavuto, saying he was not for passing the bill in its current form, and he criticized Democrats for using his image in an ad attacking Republicans for not backing the proposal. He also harshly criticized the law right after its final passage.

Looking back on the controversies in June 2011, as he was gearing up to run, Thompson told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “There’s no question I worked to get a bipartisan bill. I think we needed health care reform,” said Thompson in the interview. “I worked on that. I was sad that in the end, they skewed left to a place I couldn’t support.”

Neumann does have a connection to the Club-- their executive vice president Chuck Pike is a former Neumann chief of staff. However, Keller denied that this connection played a role in the group’s endorsement: “No. I think that anybody who looks at Mark Neumann’s record in Congress would see that he is far and away-- he was one of the people that was standing up against Republican spending from the beginning.”

When asked for response to Keller’s comments about Thompson, the Thompson campaign gave TPM this statement from campaign consultant Darrin Schmitz:

It’s no secret that Mark Neumann’s former employees now work at the Club and are directing the attacks against Tommy Thompson. Neumann infuriated Republican voters and conservative activists with the smear campaign he ran against Governor Scott Walker. A slash and burn campaign run by Neumann’s DC surrogates against Tommy Thompson will backfire on him.

Conservative bloggers in Wisconsin went so far as to write the Club to point out Neumann’s lack of character and the shameful campaign he ran against Scott Walker.

Thompson’s record of 91 tax cuts, eliminating the inheritance and gift taxes, and cutting the income tax rate three times is powerful. His welfare and school choice reforms were models for the nation and conservative victories, and Republican voters know he created jobs and Wisconsin flourished under his leadership. Thompson’s strong record and good will with the base won’t disappear because of lies from Mark Neumann and his DC attack dogs.

In contrast, former Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold wrote to supporters that he's --

proud to throw my support to a candidate who will keep the fight for progress, the middle class and equality alive in the U.S. Senate: our good friend, Tammy Baldwin... I know Tammy has the values, the vision, and the guts to be a force for the middle class in the U.S. Senate. We stood together against going to war in Iraq. And nearly 10 years before the financial collapse, we fought the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. These commonsense rules of the road prevented Wall Street and the big banks from making risky investments, and the end of those safeguards led to our economic crisis. Tammy has always put what is right for working and middle class Wisconsin families ahead of powerful special interests in Washington... Tammy is a true progressive champion, one of the strongest fighters for working families our state has ever produced and a hero to those of us who believe in breaking barriers and eliminating injustice in our society. I was proud to call her a colleague as we fought together in Washington for Wisconsin families-- and I’ll be proud to call her my Senator.

Feingold has been helping Tammy raise money to fight off the attacks of whichever of the Republican misfits emerges from their intra-party war. Blue America is also trying to help Tammy raise money. If you can, please consider a contribution. There are only three people running for the Senate who have passed Blue America's smell test so far this year: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Tammy.