Sheldon Wasserman: A Winner and Loser in April's Election

Last week, voters convincingly took away the Governor's Frankenstein veto after years of abuse.

Prior to announcing he was running against Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), Rep. Sheldon Wasserman opposed attempts to put the Frankenstein veto issue on the ballot. After announcing that he was running, Wasserman supported the constitutional amendment to remove this gubernatorial power.

Darling issued a press release a few months ago pointing out this flip-flop. If her campaign proves to be adept, and I expect it will (even Democrats admit that Darling's campaigns have been well-run), we will hear more about this issue as the election approaches.

Wasserman's fiscal conservatism has been, at best, opportunistic. Voters will see through the veneer of this election-time facade Wasserman has tried to build.

Wasserman v. Darling: Wasserman Differentiates Himself By Ignoring Voters

Recently, Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) has fashioned himself as a fiscal conservative to please the primarily Republican voters in the 8th Senate District. He has gambled that, while those voters are fiscally conservative, they are socially moderate, and he can paint Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) as a social right winger (regardless of the fact that she is a moderate).

Wasserman has, however, differentiated himself in one way that makes no sense. It has nothing to do with being fiscally conservative or being a social hardliner or social moderate. It simply proves that he cares more about what his Democratic colleagues in Madison want than what the people of his district want. The majority of people in his Assembly district, and even more definitely the people in the Senate district he wants to represent, disagree with him on this.

Wasserman has consistently voted against voter ID.

As Darling notes in an e-mail newsletter:

Wasserman voted against AJR 17, a bill that would change the state Constitution to require voters to show a photographic identification to vote or to register to vote in Wisconsin. Senator Alberta Darling is a cosponsor of the bill, and has always voted in favor of voter ID.

Two consecutive Legislatures must pass identical resolutions before changing the Constitution. Because Democrat leadership is holding up AJR 17 in a Senate committee, the 4-year process to require voter IDs to vote must start all over again next year.

Wasserman voted against similar measures to require photo ID in the past:

07AJR17 second consideration requiring photo ID to vote (4/17/07 54-43 SW: No)
05AJR36 requires photo ID to vote (11/1/05, 57-36, Wasserman: No)
05AB63 ID required for voting (2/24/05, 64-33, Wasserman: No)
05SB42 ID required for voting in elections (6/23/05, 63-42, Wasserman: No)
03AB111, ID to vote at a polling place (3/13/03, 60-34, Wasserman: No)

Integrity and Lines That Can't Be Crossed

In response to my last post, Dad29 noted that 90% of all elected officials lie. I do not know if I agree with his percentage, but many politicians do not do exactly what they say when they get into office. I do not excuse any flip flop, but there is a difference between some political rhetoric and an absolute betrayal of a clear pledge like the one Wasserman signed (see following post).

I am not so naive as to suggest that there are no shades of grey. It is one thing for a politician to say that he or she is in favor of lower taxes and then to negotiate what that means. For example, he or she can argue that there is an unexpected emergency, or that the tax is a user fee, or that he or she also voted in favor of an offsetting tax cut somewhere else. And if he makes those arguments, we shake our heads and say "there goes another politician." But, she or he has not crossed a line making him fundamentally dishonest.

But to sign a specific, public, written pledge and then, at the first opportunity, without any colorable distinction, clearly renege? That is far different.

Let me draw a parallel (a story with which Dad29 is certainly familiar, but a fine analogy nevertheless).

Thomas More was a politician during the reign of King Henry VIII. While he was a generally honest man, he could play political games with the best of them. He was not above setting aside his personal beliefs for the good of the crown, and at times he was not adverse to stretching the truth for political advantage or the social order. He even refused to denounce the King's remarriage, although it was against the law, and chastised theologians who denounced that royal prerogative.

Ultimately, however, More was unable to sign a pledge stating that the King's authority superseded that of the Pope with respect to theological matters. For that, despite his long standing friendship with and allegiance to Henry, he was beheaded.

More was a fundamentally principled, honest man. He could skirt the edges but he could not bring himself to tell the Big Lie, even though he knew it would cost him his life.

There is a difference between rhetoric and a clear pledge. Dishonesty is wrong at any level, but there are some points at which there's no going back, a threshold that differentiates an honest man from a scoundrel.

Wasserman has no way to weasel this point. He can't argue that the cigarette tax is not a tax, or that it is user fee. While there are disagreements over what those terms mean, there can be no disagreement about whether the cigarette tax is a tax. Likewise, he cannot argue that his pledge only covered certain kinds of taxes. It is clear that it is all-encompassing. There is no escaping his pledge other than to acknowledge he lied. And that, my friends, is a line an honest politician cannot cross.

Wasserman's True Colors

Back in July, I noted that Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) was one of only two Democrats who had signed a tax pledge. I also noted that he voted against the Assembly version of the budget. I asked if any journalist was going to ask him where he stood on the budget.

Wasserman's position is important, considering that he has announced that he plans to run against Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills).

Now, finally, a journalist has stepped forward. As reported by MJS reporter Patrick Marley, MJS called each state elected official who signed a tax pledge and asked if he or she could support a budget that included a tax increase. Here is what Wasserman said:

Yes. Wasserman, a doctor, said higher cigarette taxes drive people to quit smoking, thus saving lives. "I might have signed a pledge, but I also took a Hippocratic Oath," he said.

When Wasserman took the pledge, he was already a doctor. He knew about his Oath. He also was not a totally green legislator, so he knew that Wisconsin taxes cigarettes. He made a promise to voters. Perhaps he should not have made that promise, but he did. And he is going to break that promise. He has an obligation to the voters to whom he made that promise and, if he cannot live up to it, then he should resign. There has been no intervening extraordinary event that relieves him of that promise.

The pledge Wasserman signed is quite specific. It reads as follows:

I, Sheldon Wasserman, pledge to the taxpayers of the 22nd Assembly district of the State of Wisconsin and to all the people of this state, that I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.

I try to be civil on this blog. But if Wasserman votes for the cigarette tax, or any other effort to raise taxes, he is a liar. Plain and simple.

Forget for a minute about whether you think a higher cigarette tax is a good idea. This is about integrity, and what is more important in an elected official than that? Regardless of your political views, can you really vote for a proven liar?

H/T to Charlie Sykes and Owen at bootsandsabers.com

Fraley and Pug J Post: Ho Hum Wasserman’s Slow Start Fittingly Uninspiring

For those interested in the upcoming Wasserman v. Darling race in the Eighth Senate District, this post by Fraley and Pug J is a great read. For those not interested, why are you reading this blog? This will probably be the most interesting Wisconsin legislative race next year.

For my prior posts on this race, click here.

My prediction: Darling wins. Wasserman takes the 22nd, and Darling takes the 24th, with essentially mirror image margins. The 23rd (Mequon, Thiensville, Brown Deer and Bayside)decides it, with Darling winning narrowly. My prediction depends on Darling's ability to mobilize the rather tempestuous activists in southern Ozaukee County (while there will be a great focus on dollars, the difference will come down to workers). Of course, a lot can change in 15 months.

Sheldon Wasserman: Tax Fighter?

In an e-mail announcement of his candidacy yesterday, Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) states (my emphasis added):

I am giving up my seat in the State Assembly to challenge Alberta Darling for the State Senate next fall. I'm going to win. Why? Because it's time for a change. When Alberta first ran she pretended to be something she is not, a socially moderate and fiscally responsible leader. Her record over the years has drifted further and further from that ideal. She now follows a hard right wing Republican agenda. This is the same agenda that ignores real issues while making gay marriage extra illegal and banning stem cell research and the life saving hope it may offer. Despite their rhetoric, Senator Darling and her colleagues did nothing to hold the line on taxes. We can do better.

First, Darling is about as socially moderate as they come. Social conservatives have been unhappy with Darling's stance on social issues. It would be ironic, and very unfair, if Wasserman would beat her because of her "hard line" stance on social issues. But this blog is not about social issues; rather, it is about fiscal issues.

Sheldon, what have you done to hold the line on taxes? Last I checked, you voted against constitutional tax protections and against the Assembly version of the budget (which holds the line on taxes). Please, please let us know your accomplishments in this area.

PS to Wasserman's writer: You don't drift further, you drift farther.

Wasserman and the Budget: Does Milwaukee Have any Real Journalists?

Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) voted with his Democrat colleagues against the Republican Assembly budget package. No surprise there.

But, Wasserman is one of only two Assembly Democrats to sign the Americans for Tax Reform pledge against raising taxes. The other, Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer (D-Manitowoc), has at least publicly spoken about why he voted against the bill, and he has a track record of bucking the Democrats on some budgetary issues. I suspect, at the end of the day, Ziegelbauer's budget votes will be more more closely in accord with he Assembly budget than the Senate's or Governor's budget proposals.

So, what is Wasserman's reason for voting against a no-tax-increase budget? What would have needed to change for him to have voted for the Assembly budget bill? No one knows. It does not appear anyone has asked him.

Funny, because Wasserman plans to embark on one of the most expensive, or the most expensive, State Senate races in Wisconsin history. Doesn't anyone want to know his position?

Does Milwaukee have any real journalists?

Democrat Convention: Here They Come Again

The Democrats are meeting, and they are naming their 2008 targets.

At their state convention Friday and Saturday, Democratic leaders identified some of the Republican legislators they hope to defeat in the 2008 election.

Rep. Jim Kreuser, D-Kenosha, the Assembly minority leader, said Democrats will target the Assembly seats of Republicans Karl Van Roy of Green Bay, Terry Moulton of Chippewa Falls, Brett Davis of Oregon, J.A. "Doc" Hines of Oxford and Jim Ott of Mequon, among others. Democrats are three seats shy of controlling the 99-member Assembly.

"We're going to fight tooth and nail to get those three seats," Kreuser said.

Democrats currently control the Senate, and Gov. Jim Doyle is a Democrat.

Kreuser added that 15 Assembly Republicans hold seats in districts carried by Doyle in the 2006 gubernatorial election, and that all of those seats are in the Democrats' sights.

"We're going to play hard in those seats," Kreuser said.

Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson, D-Beloit, said Democrats want to expand their 18-15 majority in that chamber.

Republican senators Alberta Darling of River Hills and Dan Kapanke of La Crosse are the top targets, she said.

Rep. Sheldon Wasserman, D-Milwaukee, has already said he is challenging Darling. Sen. Lena Taylor, D-Milwaukee, said convention-goers should urge Rep. Jennifer Shilling, D-La Crosse, to challenge Kapanke. Shilling could not be reached for comment.

Democrats also identified Sen. Carol Roessler, R-Oshkosh, and Sen. Sheila Harsdorf, R-River Falls, as electoral targets.

It is, of course, too early to know how outside influences, including the presidential race, the economy and the War in Iraq, will affect Wisconsin legislative elections. But we cannot control those events. Republicans can control how we handle the races in Wisconsin.

Republicans better be smarter than they have been in the past. Last year, Republicans spent too much effort trying not to lose. In almost all walks of life, that is a loser's strategy. Instead, Republicans need to be on the offensive (Democrats will be).

I don't want to get any messages saying, "I am holding my position." We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that! We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything...

There are plenty of vulnerable Democrat seats. For example, Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) is abandoning his seat to take on Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills).

One of the first big tests of Reince Priebus' reign as GOP chair will be how he handles that seat. If Priebus truly is the leader we all hope, there should be an announced candidate this summer, that candidate should be a fiscal conservative (remember, Wasserman is hardly a wild fiscal liberal), and the party should ensure that candidate has at least $100,000 in his or her campaign account this year. The party should not take a hands-off approach until after the primary and then jump in to help the candidate. That is too little, too late.

Second, Republicans need to show that they have the courage of their convictions. I firmly believe that is why they lost so many seats last time. This budget will show whether they have any stones. Voters will notice.

In future posts, I intend to analyze the individual races targeted by the Democrats and some of the races Republicans should target.

Sheldon Wasserman's and His Pledge Not to Raise Taxes

Sometime in the last year or so, Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee), signed the Americans for Tax Reform's tax pledge. When I read the list of elected officials who signed, I was more than just a little surprised to see Wasserman's name on it.

Personally, Wasserman is a good guy. He is a left-wing Democrat when it comes to social issues, and he is hardly a fiscal conservative. He isn't a wild spending Democrat, but no one is going to confuse him for a low-taxer.

The pledge Wasserman signed reads as follows:

I, ____________, pledge to the taxpayers of the _____ district of the State of _________ and to all the people of this state, that I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.

I hope he lives up to his promise to the people who live in his district (the 22nd), and to the people who live in the State of Wisconsin. To do so, he will not to vote against Gov. Jim Doyle's budget - the budget his party has pushed in Joint Finance.

I will be watching. The people of the 8th Senate District will want to know if he is a man of his word. Wasserman hopes to unseat Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) to represent the 8th Senate District.

Wasserman Has an Idea Worth Pursuing, or at Least a Question Worth Asking

I am not a fan of Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) as a legislator (although he is a personable guy). I intend to help Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) eliminate him from the legislature.

However, regardless of the source, a good idea is a good idea. I am not sold entirely on his proposal (see some of my concerns below), but it certainly is worth discussing.

A Milwaukee Democrat says that one of the reason taxes are too high is that Wisconsin has too much government, and he's got an idea to fix that.

Go from 72 counties down to 18 or fewer.

Rep. Sheldon Wasserman believes there is no reason Wisconsin should have 72 counties.

"It's an archaic idea that was created back in the day when a county was how far you could go on your horse or buggy," said Wasserman.

He is circulating a measure around the Capitol that would form a nine-member task force to study the responsibilities and obligations of county government, and to develop a plan to reduce the number of counties.

"I looked at California and they only have 17 counties, but 10 times the population of Wisconsin," Wasserman said.

He added that with all of its counties, towns, municipal and state governments the state has a lot of government per capita.

The task force would have two members appointed by the governor, three by the president of the state Senate, three by the Assembly speaker and one by the Wisconsin Counties Association.

I have a bunch of questions about this idea, including:

A. What happens to Milwaukee County? I do not think the people of Ozaukee or Waukesha Counties should be saddled with Milwaukee County's problems, including its tremendous, self-inflicted debt.

B. Why do we need county government at all in urban areas?

C. Aren't there services that counties offer that could be eliminated or at least greatly reduced? For example, cities and villages already have highway, police and parks departments, and maintain libraries. Nevertheless, every county has a highway department, a sheriff, parks and a library. Perhaps those kinds of services should only be offered to, and paid for by, townships.

D. Can't we boil local government down to one level, eliminating county government altogether. Certainly there are some types of services that can be more efficiently provided on a regional basis, but isn't that why state law allows for inter-governmental agreements?

Wasserman's on an interesting track. But, maybe he is not going far enough.

Wasserman v. Darling: Local 2008 Race has Begun

Perhaps the most interesting Wisconsin 2008 legislative race will be Rep. Sheldon Wasserman's (D-Milwaukee) bid to unseat Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills).

Rumor has it that Wasserman is already going door-to-door in Mequon, taking on Darling in the heart of her support. He has set-up a website (on which he amusingly touts himself as a "fiscal conservative"). And he leads in the all-important money race.

Darling has made it clear she is running. She has been very visible of late in her District, and has started raising money. Her website, however, is just a little out-of-of-date.

If Republicans have any hope of taking back control of the Wisconsin Senate, they must win this seat.

This district will be a good test for new GOP Chair Reince Preibus. Will the GOP find a strong candidate to run for Wasserman's seat (helping Darling attract North Shore voters)? Will the Party put resources behind this race, or will it allow the Presidential race to overshadow all things Wisconsin? Will the Party find ways to win, or will they employ the same old losing strategies?

And this is also an important race for bloggers. Conservative bloggers have become a real force in Southeastern Wisconsin, but too often only for what they are against. In this past legislative election season, conservative bloggers were criticised for being late in their support for conservative candidates. Can conservative bloggers set aside their ideological purity (some have been criticial of Darling, despite her general fiscal conservatism) for a win for their cause? Will they put forth a real effort for an important race? Will they demonstrate the stark differences between these two candidates? Will they step forward early enough to make a difference?