Scott Walker must have a secret bet going with GOP senate candidate Ronald Johnson to see whose campaign can devolve first into a state of permanent back-fire to bury their candidacy before primary Tuesday. So far it looks like Walker's got a slight lead in that contest.
After windbag Walker issued his pork spending campaign attack against Mark Neumann, the internets opened up with evidence that Walker actually supported enough of the bill to hope it would pass. It did, but now Walker says the portion of the bill he supported was different because "this is money that was already there," but suggests the bill should have been voted down anyways because it spent too much. Is that some new kind of fiscal conservatism? Does any of that make sense?
As it turns out, Tom Barrett, who was in Congress at the time with Neumann, voted against the bill. At a press conference, Walker was asked what he thought about Barrett's vote. With a shit-eating grin he responded…
WKOW Excerpt:Just couldn't give credit when credit was due. With that cheapshot answer, you'd have to wonder how Scott Walker would have voted on the bill had he the chance. Most likely he would have voted "absent," just like his thinking is right now, or ask one of his republican colleagues for advice on how to vote.
"He probably voted against it because it didn't have enough pork for his district," Walker said.
Another Wisconsin blog, Illusory Tenant, noted that Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, like Tom Barrett, also voted against the pork barrel spending bill. Scott Walker of course was not a member of Congress.
Illusory Tenant Excerpt:Any way we look at this episode, in a one-on-one match-up with either republican on that old spending bill issue, Tom Barrett comes out the winner - as he should.
See how ridiculous these sorts of ads are? They practically depend on voter ignorance. And there could only be but one rational explanation for this one: Mark-Neumann-breathing-down-your-neck desperation.
On a slightly different subject
In all due respect to some of my progressive friends, I don't agree with some of the reasons blogs are offering for democratic party voters to consider voting republican in the primary in an attempt to run a "weaker" candidate against the opposing democrat. Regarding Walker, Neumann, Johnson or Westlake, they all are running on failed GOP platform ideas and carry their own personal broken records. One might be more radical than the other, the other might be more tea-bagger or just plain stupid - but they are all equally weak one-on-one against Feingold or Barrett. Bottom line: Don't waste your vote on a republican.