Just what does Jim Klauser have against Scott Walker? Klauser, the one-time “deputy governor” under then-Gov. Tommy Thompson, likes to style himself as a kingmaker, and he clearly doesn’t want Walker to get the crown.
Back in 2006, when Walker was running in the Republican gubernatorial primary against Mark Green, Klauser and many of the old Thompson loyalists supported Green, which made it difficult for Walker to raise any money. Then Klauser led a group of Republican insiders who called Walker to suggest he withdraw. “Klauser helped broker Walker getting out of the race,” says one longtime GOP insider.
The party should be united, Klauser and company argued, the campaign donations shouldn’t be diluted, your time will come later. And Walker, who was far behind in raising money anyway, did the prudent thing and withdrew.
So here we are three years later, and it seems, Walker’s time still hasn’t come, at least as far as Klauser is concerned. He wanted attorney Rick Graber to enter the race, but Graber declined. Next Klauser turned to businessman and former congressman Mark Neumann, who came very close to upsetting U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold in 1998. Sure enough, Neumann decided to enter the race, and Klauser last week let Republicans know they should support him.
“Mark Neumann is the only prospective candidate from either party who has created jobs,” Klauser said. “All we have are political figures who have never worked in the private sector.” Uh-huh. So Walker is just a “political figure.”
Going further, Klauser said, “I have concluded that of the prospective candidates, Mark Neumann is best able to win and govern well.” So Walker is not only just a political figure, but he does a lousy job of running county government.
Why all this hate? Democratic-leaning politico Jeff Fleming suggests Klauser is a pro-government Republican who knows how to govern and thinks Walker doesn’t.
Republican insiders, of course, are way off the record. Says one: “Klauser is just out of touch.” He notes Klauser’s support for Mitt Romney for president as an example. Says another Republican: “Klauser has created this kingmaker myth and Walker hasn’t done enough to kiss the ring.”
But maybe Walker doesn’t have to; this time he is in a much stronger position, almost the reverse of 2006. For the 2010 governor’s race, Walker has gotten out front first. He has been going to Republican events across the state for years and connecting to the party faithful. He has already gotten commitments and started raising money. “There’s a lot of excitement about Walker among Waukesha Republicans,” says one insider. And Waukesha is the center of things Republican.
This time it’s Neumann who will have to play catch-up. And it’s doubtful many Republicans will see him as better able to govern than Walker; Walker at least has governed, while Neumann had a couple terms as a representative. It’s also doubtful that today’s GOP, which has so few moderates left, would care about that issue anyway. Most are anti-government and Walker will fit that mentality nicely.
In short, Neumann faces an uphill battle. But he does have three key advantages. (1) He’s wealthy and can choose to fund a race even if Walker does grab most of the GOP campaign donations. (2) Walker’s base – Milwaukee County – is a big weakness in a GOP primary. In a race for county executive, Walker does well among conservative Democrats and even black voters, who are less likely to pay attention to a Republican primary or vote in one.
The third advantage for Neumann is one that could be powerful should he decide to go negative. Candidates from Milwaukee never do well in statewide races because the rest of the state sees Milwaukee in negative terms. Neumann could run ads portraying Milwaukee as a hellhole that Walker is responsible for, with high government benefits and taxes, declining parks, a dirty, poorly maintained courthouse, an out-of-control House of Correction and a County Board and executive who are constantly squabbling.
Milwaukee voters, of course, would know this portrayal is a tad unfair. But few outstate voters would. After six years as county executive, Walker now owns all those problems, and would have trouble offering an easy-to-understand explanation of why he isn’t the poster boy for everything Wisconsin voters think they dislike about the state’s biggest city. Such an attack could be devastating.
Arts Supporters’ Hollow Triumph
After the Milwaukee Common Council approved the proposed public art on Wisconsin Avenue by artist Janet Zweig, there was lots of back-patting and a consensus that the good guys (the arts supporters, of course) had won, and that Milwaukee had overcome the “Blue Shirt syndrome.”
On the contrary. I think arts supporters mostly did a poor job of selling Zweig’s work, yet because they won, they will be misled into thinking that all you need to do is amass some supporters at City Hall and you’ll triumph. Sorry, it rarely works that neatly.
Recall that conservative talk radio (both Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling) jumped all over the Blue Shirt, whereas they had little to say about the Zweig work. Part of that may be because the Blue Shirt was easy to reduce to something silly (for supposedly thumbing its nose at Milwaukee’s blue-collar heritage), while Zweig’s work was difficult to easily reduce to a stereotype, and too small and modest to trigger public hatred. But another reason for Sykes and Belling to pass was they have fewer listeners and less clout in the city (versus the county, which had jurisdiction over the Blue Shirt).
If talk radio had rabble-roused on the Zweig piece, they would have generated angry calls and e-mail from constituents. And that would have counted for far more than the assembled arts lovers at City Hall. How many of these people even live in the city? And of those who do, how many live anywhere besides the East Side, Downtown, Bay View or Riverwest – in short, how many lived in the other 11 of the city’s 15 aldermanic districts?
Aldermen like Bob Donovan and Joe Dudzik, who opposed the artwork, had reason to believe their constituents wouldn’t approve of tax dollars going to public art, as did many other Common Council members. What did the arts supporters offer in response to such objections? One, Mike Brenner, threatened to defecate on their lawn. Others suggested they don’t understand public art or should simply let the art experts decide such things. Greater Milwaukee Committee President Julia Taylor lumped the Common Council with all bad officials: “our elected leadership just creates the image again of an unsophisticated city,” she wrote in her blog.
Not surprisingly, Ald. Willie Wade complained of the “superiority complex” of the art supporters. But he had not one call of opposition from a constituent, so he voted yes. It’s easy to vote for art when no one opposes it.
When the Blue Shirt controversy arose, the late Milwaukee Journal Sentinel art critic James Auer and former architecture critic Whitney Gould were the defenders, offering paens to public art (it’s good for us, darn it) that seemed vague and a bit patronizing. Mary Louise Schumacher, who now handles both beats, at least did a better job of rallying arts supporters than her predecessors. It got ridiculous, though, as she touted a long list of bloggers, including those (good grief) defending Brenner (but then, so did Schumacher). Her response to my complaint essentially argues these bloggers can’t be gasbags because, after all, they’re community notables. I stand corrected.
The essence of this kind of approach is that arts supporters are the elite, the good guys who know what is best for the community. That kind of rhetoric is easy to ridicule and demonize, and that’s just what talk radio will do at some point in the future when a public art controversy arises. And when that happens, it won’t matter how many aesthetes support the project. Unless they can make a coherent, powerful and unpatronizing case for public art, it will go down to defeat.
The Buzz
–Lou Fortis and the Shepherd Express are suing Chris Abele and Milwaukee Film for allegedly stealing away Fortis’ film festival. Abele offered no public response. As to summarizing the issues at hand, I don’t think I could better than Michael Horne’s droll take.
-Applicants for top university jobs inevitably withdraw their name when it’s clear they’re not going to get the job. That certainly appears to be the case for UW-Milwaukee Chancellor Carlos Santiago, whose bid to get the post at Florida International University didn’t succeed, if you read the JS story on this carefully.
-And the first thing Mark Neumann may need to do in his run for governor is get a new photo. I don’t think this one is doing him any favors.
