Really Nate: look at his record.

As far as I know, Congressman Ron Kind (D), a moderate, is still considering running for Kohl's seat in the Senate.

Not when they cut him checks.

WEAC doesn't compare to the dollars pouring into the outside interest Super PACs infesting our state.

Did McCain-Feingold reforms actually do anything to make campaign finance any better?

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are claiming about Johnson supporting child-molesting priests. Was Johnson in a position to do something and failed to act?

Feingold lost because voters were sick of the same old same old. The Feingold drivel was old and tired. At least Johnson is standing for something (whether you agree or disagree with it).

CowDung,
Here is the link to the Johnson/Cathoic Church thing.
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/95740094.html
This was disturbing, but would not be enough to drive me away if Johnson had some other redeeming qualities. However, I could not find any. "The Donny Show" claims he stands for something, but I would be hard-pressed to say what. He parroted Tea Party rhetoric nicely, but had trouble showing any vision for anything except wanting to be elected. The one bill he has sponsored so far - S.1438 - is daft and clearly shows he favors slogans over substance. I agree with CowDung that McCain-Feingold was ineffective, but I have to give credit to his lonely votes against the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq war resolution. Clearly Feingold was also "standing for something" as The Donny Show vaguely puts it.

I think Johnson did bring up a valid point about the employer being held responsible for the criminal actions of an employee.

...and hasn't there been litigation against the Catholc church despite the bill (that Johnson opposed) being defeated?

Cowdung,
Johnson's point about employers is valid in general, but not really in that specific case where the employer - the Catholic Church - was part of the coverup of the crime. Why was Johnson even jumping into that case in the first place? But like I said earlier, that case would not put me against Johnson by itself. I am often leery of laws that purport to "protect the children". They often go too far or are a cover for some other agenda.

But I still haven't seen any argument for voting for Johnson. I think Republicans could have run Randy of the Redwoods and Wisconsin R's would have voted for him just because he was on "their team". There was a lot of anger and not much thinking there.

I would tend to agree that his point applies to employers in general, but unless the bill was very specific in scope it was likely best to not support it. As it turns out, Johnson was on the 'winning' side of that bill. He likely got pushed into taking the position as part of the campaign.

Part of Johnson's appeal was that he wasn't a Washington insider or an established party loyalist like Feingold. He claimed fiscal responsibility at a time when government spending is out of control. His role as a business owner puts him in a position where he can be viewed as a contributor to the economy that spends his own money responsibly rather than a career lawyer or politician that likes to spend the taxpayer's money haphazardly.

Just vote out the obstructionists.

Johnson is getting all his talking points from Patrick what's his name ( former right wing columnist of JS). He has no clue what he's doing in Washington.

YEP

Wagner surprisingly had a good point about this. He suggested this is more about RF's financial situation and the gruley nature of a campaign. Life is good for him now. Although, I think he could handily beat any Republican that ran against him. Bring on the old man Tommy and let's have some fun!

If Feingold can 'handily beat any Republican that ran against him', why is he not a US Senator anymore?

@CowDung -- In a word, funding. Feingold was enough of a maverick that the Democratic national party didn't support him the way they might have, while Johnson certainly had a lot of funding from his own money and the other side.

Listening to all you usual suspects talk on here, I'm reminded why we really need Feingold. I wish you'd reconsider, Russ.

Is Abele ready to take the next step so soon?

Abele wasn't ready for the first step and that didn't stop him. Bring him on. And since we're talking about Kohl's spot (millionaire DEM bankrolling his own seat...blah, blah), there'd be that continuity thing.

Working on it, Joe, working on it. What, you want him to get that done AND shave off the goatee all in his first term? Give the guy a break!

No doubt- an exciting time in Wisconsin politics! Can't wait to see who the Republicons put up!

You might be on to something Lyle.

Dear Mr. Ruble - I enjoy your comments. What is your opinion regarding Ron Kind running for Kohl's Senate seat?

@Desiree Erickson..Thank you for your kind words. Now to your request. Ron Kind, is in my estimation the only Democrat that would have wide enough appeal to be attractive to moderates and independents. As you say he is publicly perceived as a moderate. Tammy Baldwin would only appeal to Dane County and part of Milwaukee County. The State of Wisconsin is not ready to elect a Senator of her sexual orientation. Dave Obey would be a good candidate but he is a little "long in the tooth" and I don't think he would run. In fact, if Walker comes up for recall, I would love to see Dave run to finish out Walker's term. In short, if Ron were to run, I could support and work for him.

Great point Greg! Would love to see term limits..the problem is many of these folks aren't qualified to do anything else :-)

Like RJ?