Josh Schroeder

Don't Buy Stuff

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:37:00 +0000

Of course, by this logic, none of us could afford to go to seminary.

I Might Pay Money

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:04:00 +0000

I might pay money to have Tom Cruise attempt to "give me a beatdown." Then again, I'm not a lapsed Scientologist.

Emphasis on attempt.

Has Chris Matthews Been Calling al-Qaeda?

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:43:00 +0000

Last night on Twitter, a bunch of folks RT'd a clip of Chris Matthews asking if it was a crime to call al-Qaeda.

The first thought that came across my mind was "Chris Matthews is asking that question because he's been calling al-Qaeda. And now he's worried that he might be in trouble." lol

But he probably never actually talked to them because al-Qaeda wouldn't accept the charges for his collect calls.

Happy Birthday USMC

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:52:00 +0000

Happy Birthday United States Marine Corps!

Crucify him! Crucify him!

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:04:00 +0000

A lot of people are angry and upset at Congressman Cao because he voted for the House version of socialized medicine (HR 3962). I'm not saying they shouldn't be angry, but...

I just don't see the point in crucifying him. What does it accomplish? I'd argue that it's counter-productive.

And think about it a little bit. Look at his district. He occupies the seat formerly held by William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, who is now a convicted felon. In other words, Cao was not elected with a conservative mandate. Cao was elected because his opponent was a corrupt crook, and the constitutents actually had the guts to throw the bum out of office. They didn't vote for Cao so much as they voted against Jefferson.

Also, this bill would have passed anyway. I don't think Cao is a RINO. He's simply a conservative in a liberal district. Maybe I'm wrong - I'm not sure. But when you're in his position (also keep in mind that this is only Cao's first term in office - he hasn't earned the political capital within his district or the staying power of incumbency), you don't always have the luxury to vote your conscience on an issue when your distrect sees it differently.

Think about it this way: what happens to Cao if he votes against this bill? The bill passes anyway and his district votes him out of office by electing a Democrat in 2010. This bill needs to die in the Senate, not the House. It doesn't do any good for Cao to vote against it, other than the fact that the Democrats can claim it had bi-partisan support because there was one (and only one) Republican who voted for the bill.

I watched the vote live on C-SPAN. If I remember correctly, the one Republican vote for the bill did not show up until after 218 Democrats cast their "yes" votes to pass the bill. Cao waited for the Democrats to get there all by themselves before casting his vote.

If you want to be fired up about Cao's vote, channel that passion into getting conservatives elected where you live. For the next year, conservatives should spend their money and their time electing conservatives at the federal, state, and local levels WHERE THEY LIVE.

Do you live in Cao's district? If you do, then you have a right to work against him in the next general election. But I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the people bent out of shape about Cao's vote are represented by Democrats who voted for the bill. Why should Cao committ political suicide on a bill he can't do anything to stop? It makes absolutely no sense for him to die on that hill.

The Cao vote is unsettling, but people need to take care of the planks in their own eyes first. And we need to know better than to call Cao a RINO and have him burned at the stake. There are such things as RINOs, but we do the conservative movement much harm by using the term loosely.

(And for the people who bring up "What about NY-23?" Should concerned citizens have stayed out of it given this logic? Then answer is no for three reasons - it was a SPECIAL election, there were obvious extenuating circumstances, and national forces including parties and Organizing for America were involved.)

Saturday Night Live with Rep. Paul Ryan

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:46:00 +0000

Saved or Created

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:09:00 +0000

We've heard in the media that Obama "saved or created 600,000 jobs" give or take.

I want to divide up "saved" and "created." How many of these 600,000 jobs were "saved"? How many of these 6000,000 jobs were created?

And of these 600,000 alleged jobs, how many of them are in the private sector, or asked another way, how many of these "saved or created" jobs are NOT government jobs?

Just wondering.

Brett Who?

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 05:01:00 +0000

At 1:00pm today, Green Bay Packer fans will gather at Lambeau Field attempting to set a new Guinness Record for longest sustained boo by a stadium crowd.

We'll never forget you, Brent.

Barbara Lawton Not Running for WI Governor?

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:57:00 +0000

I did not see that one coming. Wow. Wisconsin's Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton isn't running for Governor.

So... Mayor Barrett? Unless the people who already said they won't run will now change their minds.

I'm almost speechless. It's about one year from Election Day and the Democrats don't have a declared candidate. Is this supposed to be some kind of Reverse-Operation Chaos to put the focus on the Republican primary between Walker vs. Neumann?

As Owen Robinson points out from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story, the Obama White House really wants Barrett to run. That got me thinking (especially since Chicago is so close to Wisconsin) that this drove Lawton's decision.

Jim Doyle endorsed Barack Obama for President in the Democrat Primary in January of 2008.
Tom Barrett endorsed Barack Obama back in April of 2007.
Who did Barbara Lawton endorse? Hillary Clinton.

Even if polling shows Barrett to be a stronger candidate than Lawton, you can't help but wonder if this is an example of Team Obama doing things the Chicago way in Wisconsin.

Interesting.

Override?

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:26:00 +0000

What is the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod? Rather, who is the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod? I define it this way: the Synod is nothing more than the congregations that belong to it. Major League Baseball does not exist if no teams belong to it, to use a very limited analogy. My point is that the Synod should not be an entity unto itself.

In terms of decision making, I would argue that the truest expression of the Synod is when it gathers for convention - this is where two delegates from every circuit (If Synod is national, district is state, think of circuit like a county) come together to pass resolutions, etc. following Robert's Rules and such. But since this only happens one week every three years, you have to elect representatives in the meantime to make decisions between conventions. Thus we have things like Boards of Directors over the whole Synod as well as other things (schools, publishing houses, etc). But if such a board (or other elected official) makes a bad decision, does the Synod have to wait until the next convention to take any kind of action to fix the problem?

When I was the president of the congregation, the congregation reserved the right to overrule the leadership. I don't remember the specifics if it required a majority of the communicant membership or two-thirds of voters who showed up or what, but the point was that if the congregation disagreed with elected leadership (on non-doctrinal matters), spelled out in the constitution and bylaws was a mechanism for the body as a whole to override the leadership. If I made a bad decision, the congregation had the right to overrule it.

I've been doing some research to find if any such mechanism exists in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, such that if the leadership does something that a majority of Synod members disagree with, they can override it.

For example, let's say that the LCMS owns two radio stations, and the LCMS Board of Directors decides to sell one of the two stations. The Synod in convention never expressed any desire to sell the radio station, and in fact there may even have been resolutions in past Synodical conventions or District conventions expressing the desire NOT to sell the stations. Nevertheless, the elected leadership of the Synod, the Board of Directors, as the elected officials charged with stewardship of Synodical properties, decided to sell one of the stations. Remember, this is just a hypothetical.

What if there are a lot of LCMS congregations and people who either don't want to sell the station or oppose the way in which the sale was handled? Does the Synod have any means by which to tell the Board of Directors that "We disapprove of your decision and are overruling you" or something to that effect?

In this purely hypothetical example, if a majority of members of the Synod are against the sale, it would be inaccurate to say that the LCMS sold the radio station. It would be more accurate to say that the LCMS Board of Directors did this on behalf of the Synod. What's the difference? The latter statement does not imply that the Synod wanted this action taken on its behalf. The LCMS Board of Directors may have done this against the will of the Synod.

In the business world, you throw out the directors and appoint new ones. The problem is that even if the LCMS were to take such action, doing so would not "unsell" the radio station. You would think that there would be in writing somewhere that the real owners (the Synod) has the final say on a big decision made by stewards (the Board of Directors). Owners trust stewards to care for things and tend to affairs, but ultimately the stewards are only servants who answer to their master. And even if the Synod does not have it spelled out anywhere in black and white, one would think that common sense would dictate to stewards that such a big item of business as selling a radio station merits consulting the master. Should not big deals be voted upon by the Synod itself?

One may argue that because of their election, we must passively abide with whatever they decide because they always know best. But again, common sense and simple Christian behavior guidelines speak against the example of the pompous Mayor or Congressman who says "You don't like my decision? Too bad. It's over. If you don't like it, fire me on election day." Bear in mind that one bad decision does not merit impeachment and expulsion; such people should serve out their terms and even be re-elected, but at the very least the bad decision needs be revisited.

The Synod needs alternative means of recourse, hypothetically speaking.

CAN'T WAIT FOR SEASON 8!

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:58:00 +0000

Thanks, Fred! Can't wait for Season 8.

Wow! P-D Culture Club Sure Didn't Fact Check This Article

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:49:00 +0000

Where to start?

The Saint Louis Post Dispatch website has an article by Sarah Bryan Miller about the Brothers of John the Steadfast blog as it relates to the sale of KFUO-FM.

She claims that the BJS website is run by Rev. Todd Wilken, the host of radio talk show Issues, Etc. and his producer Jeff Schwarz, both former employees of KFUO-AM. I'm 99.99999999999999999% certain that neither one of them runs that website.

Here's a quote from the article: "Wilken is entitled (as he does in a reply to the original post) to damn “the decidedly secular monied interests in the St. Louis arts community” as 'the devil,' although that seems a bit extreme." It seems a bit extreme because it's extremely FALSE. Pastor Wilken is taking issue with the management of KFUO, not the Saint Louis arts community. The management has been two-faced for some time. Understand this: KFUO FM is owned and operated by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, even though the station plays Classical music which is not always Christian in origin. Thus, Classic 99 has two core constituencies: Missouri Synod Lutherans and the Saint Louis arts community. KFUO management appealed to the Lutherans saying "Oh yeah! Classic 99 is so great! It's a music ministry! We're witnessing to the community! Help support this Christian outreach!" KFUO management also appealed to the Saint Louis arts community at the same time saying "Isn't classical music great? Yeah! Classical music! Nothing to do with God, Jesus, or the Church at all! Ministry? What Ministry? This isn't a ministry!" I'm being a little hyperbolic, but you get the idea.

When Rev. Wilken says KFUO management made a deal with the devil, that is NOT a reference to the Saint Louis arts community, it refers to the fact that KFUO "made a deal with the devil" to try to have things both ways. They wanted to have their cake (raise money as if Classic 99 was a ministry) and eat it too (raise money as if it was a completely secular station). The Saint Louis arts community is no more the devil than the Missouri Synod Lutherans who supported the station - the devil is the devil.

And Pastor Wilken has evidence that supports his claims that the FM side was not financially sustaining the AM side, in fact it was quite the opposite - money was reported in the books in such a way as to make the FM station look in better financial shape than the AM side. Again, management was playing both sides for their own advantage.

As an interested Missouri Synod Lutheran, I can't help but see this whole situation as a failure of management at many levels in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. You can't blame this on the economy - this is bad management all the way around: the FM station should not have tried to serve two masters, the books between the two stations should either be completely separate or completely unified. In short, things should never have gotten to this point in the first place. But since they did, the sale of the FM station should have been handled much better. The secrecy, the unwillingness to receive other bids, and the complete disregard of both the people of the LCMS who did not want the station sold as well as the Saint Louis arts community which had a vested interest in the station, all point to bad management from the Synod leadership.

This is failed management and the absence of leadership in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

Something that continues to grind my gears about the sale of KFUO-FM is that this was done not by the Synod in convention (which meets every three years) but by the board of directors. My guess is that the issue of selling either station would have gone down in flames on the convention floor. In fact, I'm pretty sure that over the last few years, district conventions (if the synod is federal, think of districts as states) passed resolutions directing synod to retain ownership of both stations. It seems to me that the LCMS Board of Directors (and others) are taking action against the will of the Synod.

Let The State of Michigan Water Your Plants

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:54:00 +0000

Have you seen those ads by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation inviting companies to move to their state? You've probably seen or heard their ads with Jeff Daniels as their spokesman, like this one:

This campaign, whether my assessment is fair or not, reminds me of the Herlihy Boy House Sitting Service sketch on Saturday Night Live:

Please bring your company to Michigan. We won't put you in Detroit if you don't want to. You can have an LLC. Please, please bring your company to Michigan.

I'm just waiting for Farley to come crashing in - C'mon, let the state of Michigan be the home of your business.

Wish I Had IFC

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:03:00 +0000

This looks really good. I wish I had IFC. Actually, I know some people who do. Maybe they can record some of this stuff for me. Monty Python: Almost the Truth (The Lawyers Cut)

If You Thought The EKD was Lutheran...

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:51:00 +0000

If you thought the EKD (Evangelical Church in Germany) was Lutheran, you would be wrong.

They've rejected the Augsburg Confession. Just an FYI

And for reference, here is the Augsburg Confession.

Papa God's Pizza

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:14:00 +0000

Christ of Culture? Christ the Transformer of Culture? You be the judge. From the Portage Daily Register:

A SLICE OF HEAVEN: Pizza Church offers the word of God and something to eat

Bluto Doesn't Like CCM

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:40:00 +0000

"Sorry."

LCMS Sells KFUO FM

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:26:00 +0000

On the one hand, I think this is a smart decision. On the other hand, I think it is ridiculously stupid.

Random observations in no particular order:

One need not be an LCMS Lutheran to take note of the "smoke-filled boardroom" vibe and behind-the-scenes negotiations, and the speed with which the decision was arrived and the deal negotiated. Many people are commenting on this story at the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch website, many of whom are not Lutheran.

Public Relations Disaster.

By contrast, look at another story in today's Saint Louis Post-Dispatch about the possible sale of the Saint Louis Rams NFL team. Here are two paragraphs:

According to league sources, there are multiple bidders for the Rams as the potential sale of the team has advanced to a second stage — from looking for potential buyers to evaluating the merits of bidders. It is not known who the other bidders are.

"I certainly think individual bidders have the right to discuss their interest in the club," said Kevin Demoff, the Rams' executive vice president of football operations. "There's really nothing for us to say. It's really not fair to anybody involved in the process." [Emphasis added.]

Don't just look at the dollar amount ($18,000,000), but more importantly, look at the terms of the sale - The LCMS will finance the sale, with a 10-year balloon note. According to sources close to the Synod’s board of directors, Gateway will pay $150,000 immediately, $1.35 million at closing, an additional $1,500,000 in interest and amortization in the fourth year, and the remainder in the tenth year. In other words, the FM station will be a source of income for LCMS, Inc. over the next ten years. This is important especially because the LCMS has been hemorrhaging money and taking on a lot of debt.

One does not need a radio signal to have access to classical music. Go to Wal-Mart and buy a CD. Purchase an album on iTunes. For free on the internet, one can listen to Pandora radio. There are other classical radio stations who simulcast on the internet for anyone around the world who wants to listen.

Radio is already dead, it just hasn't died yet. Portable internet is continuing to develop and expand. It won't be too long before your car will come standard with wireless internet access of some form, or if not standard, it will be cheap and easy to do. As soon as internet is easily and readily accessible, radio will be rendered worthless because you'll have everything that radio offers and more simply with internet access. Everybody knows the stock market adage of "buy low and sell high." The value of radio licenses is dropping - the longer you hold onto it, the less it will be worth. Financially speaking, the best time to sell the FM station was yesterday. The second best time to sell it is today.

"The station was never advertised, and the sale was handled in secrecy." Do you get the impression that if it HAD been advertised and sold out in the open that the license would have sold for substantially less than $18 Million?

The LCMS Board for Communication Services decided to sell to a contemporary Christian music organization. Two other separate groups were formed to place bids on the license, one comprised of Lutherans who wanted to maintain the classical radio format, another comprised of members of the Saint Louis community who wanted to continue playing classical music. Both groups, apparently, were intentionally ignored. No matter who you are, you have to admit that this appears suspicious (even if it is actually clean as a whistle).

[See the update at the bottom of this blog post after reading this paragraph - Ed.] I'm sure much effort will be made to point out that we didn't sell the AM station. But it's no secret that the FM revenue was paying the bills on the AM side. Now that AM850's enabler has been sold off, who's going to pay the bills? How will the AM station stay afloat without the FM station? And don't expect the proceeds of the FM sale will benefit the AM station. That money will have to be used to plug the financial holes in the Synod's budget. I'm not holding my breath that any funds will be left over for the AM station. The FM station is sold, and the AM station's days are numbered.

This didn't happen overnight. We didn't get to be in this situation by accident or mere coincidence. This could have been avoided.

I may add to this post later, but I wanted to share these thoughts.

Oh - let's dump the AM station while we're at it. I'd like to use the KFUO facilities as my personal ham radio shack (where do you think Radio Shack got its name, anyway?)

UPDATE - It has been pointed out to me by more than one person that the FM station HAS NOT been funding the AM side, in fact, the FM station has been putting its own losses on the AM station, kinda like a financial "scape goat" if you will. In fact, the FM station showed a loss of $254,000 last year. From the Vice President - Finance - Treasurer's report to the Board of Directors minutes:

Regarding KFUO, he noted a loss of $443,000, although the loss by the AM station is currently being covered by designated bequest income, likely to be depleted in another year. The FM share of the loss will need to be covered by unrestricted assets, this $254,000 loss in large part due to reduced support from the St. Louis arts community. He noted in particular that fundraising efforts costing KFUO $402,000 over the past year generated gifts of only $448,000.

Obama Didn't Even Get Bronze

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:31:00 +0000

By now I'm sure you heard that Chicago did not win the bid for the 2016 Olympic Games. This is a bit of a surprise because I figured that "The One" wouldn't have made the trip except to seal the deal (why take the risk otherwise?) and generate some good PR for himself.

But what shocked me was that despite President Obama's presence, Chicago came in fourth; they came in last. That's right - Barack Obama didn't even medal.

Te Deum

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:14:00 +0000

The Te Deum is probably one of my favorite liturgical songs. We sang it in chapel this morning as part of the Office of Matins. I like the version in the hymnal, but I don't care for changing "thee and thou" to "you," probably only for one reason: that's how I grew up learning it.

During my undergrad at Concordia University Wisconsin, when I was a member of the Kammerchor (which is German for "Chamber Choir"), we sang the Festival Te Deum as composed by Benjamin Britten. Here it is performed by a choir from the University of Utah:

I'm in the Seminary Chorus, but we probably won't sing it because we only have male voices. There is a mixed voice choir on campus, but I don't belong to it. Only so many hours in the day, you know?

IMHO, Britten's Festival Te Deum is an example of "contemporary" church music that, for lack of beter terminology, gets it right. It's not a setting we're used to hearing in church, but it retains piety.

Thoughts?

How's Greek Going?

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:43:00 +0000

How's Greek going? Something like this:

50 Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 05:31:00 +0000

Mollie has an excellent post here on the BRTFSSG survey results.

You have to hand it to them - make a one-sided presentation in favor of the proposals, ask ambiguous and innocuous-sounding questions, control the discussion, silence or marginalize those who have legitimate doubt or hesitancy, and administer a survey of district convention delegates in such a way as to get the outcomes you desire, all while feigning objectivity and neutrality.

Is it just me, or are the actions of the BRTFSSG just a giant exercise of the old Begging The Question fallacy? You really have to wonder sometimes.

Anyway, now armed with the results they wanted, this is THE argument against anyone who isn't fired up about the restructuring proposals:

I don't mind synod politics, but I expect that we all play fair. Is that too much to ask?

Dr. Arand Called to the CTCR

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:31:00 +0000

We received word today that Rev. Dr. Charles Arand has received a call to the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations. Dr. Arand is currently professor of systematic theology at Concordia Seminary as well as the chair of the systematics department. Dr. Arand will be prayerfully considering whether he should stay at the seminary or take the position with the CTCR. My family will also be praying for him as God guides him at this crossroads.

That being said, I believe he should turn the call down and stay at the Seminary. Here's why:

From the LCMS CTCR website, explaining what the CTCR does:

The Synod established the Commission on Theology and Church Relations in 1962 to provide leadership in dealing with the Synod's needs and opportunities in the areas of theology and church relations. Since that time, the Commission has provided reports on a number of significant theological issues and has been the Synod's primary agency for carrying out its ecumenical responsibilities toward other Christians through its membership in the International Lutheran Council The Commission also provides resources and information regarding organizations, philosophies and religious movements. The Commission provided leadership for a model theological convocation held in 2002. Documents and statements from that convocation are available.

Prior to 1962, such things were the responsibility of the Seminary faculties (Concordia Seminary in Saint Louis and Concordia Theological Seminary which at the time was in Springfield, Illinois). The Synod lost faith in the Concordia Seminary faculty due to the creeping of false doctrines regarding the authority of scripture, the historical-critical method, and so forth. Since they could not be trusted, the Synod created the Commission on Theology and Church Relations.

This is no longer the case. We have outstanding faculties at both seminaries which are worthy of much trust. I believe the time has come to disband the CTCR and delegate its responsibilities back to the historical and rightful trustees, the faculties of Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Concordia Seminary in Saint Louis. To further support my position, I would point out that seminary faculty members have been on the CTCR for some time, including Dr. Arand who himself is currently serving, also Rev. Dr. Nathan Jastram (who is the chairman of the Theology department at Concordia University Wisconsin) as well as the sainted Dr. Kurt Marquardt. If we can trust Seminary professors to serve on the CTCR, then we can just give the whole thing back again to the seminaries.

As chairman of the systematic theology department at Concordia Seminary, Dr. Arand should remain on the seminary faculty, if for no other reason, than to do what he would have done at the CTCR anyway. In other words, instead of leaving the Seminary to go to the CTCR, the CTCR should come to him in his current position as seminary professor.

BUT HOW WILL WE PAY FOR IT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

That's easy! The CTCR is budgeted at least a million dollars annually if I remember correctly. Shut down the CTCR and send that money to the seminaries which will take on those responsibilities.

This is a no-brainer in my opinion. Question is, will the Synod take up this action at the next convention? I'm not holding my breath, but it's up to the delegates.

Ron Kind Not Running for WI Governor

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:24:00 +0000

Unexpected news out of Wisconsin today - Congressman Ron Kind won't run for governor. He's just going to stay in Congress forever (I guess). Since you've read details on every other Wisconsin blog worth reading, I'll add my two cents:

In his official statement, Kind said "bla bla bla I have to stay in Congress to make sure Health Care Reform passes bla bla bla." It's been no secret that Kind has been waiting years to run for governor - now the seat opens up and he sacrifices his opportunity on the altar of health care? Not sure I follow the political calculus on that decision.

It is also worth noting that Kind stated earlier that he would not run if Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett were to run for the position. So tea leaves point to that as a probability. And of course, Barbara Lawton, Wisconsin's esteemed and highly distinguished Lieutenant Governor announced her candidacy before the dust had even settled from Doyle's announcement not to seek a third term.

Kind's non-candidacy surprises me because I saw him as the front runner in the Democratic primary. Now there are only two Democratic candidates according to conventional wisdom: Lawton and Barrett (Jon Erpenbach stated earlier that he would not run, but that wasn't exactly breaking news). As Lieutenant Governor, Lawton has virtually no responsibilities or name recognition. She's Jim Doyle's lieutenant governor. That's pretty much it. She's linked to Jim Doyle. Could she have a heavier millstone around her neck?

And unless you are a big follower of Wisconsin politics, if you don't live in the Milwaukee media market, you haven't heard of Tom Barrett. That is, unless you saw the coverage of him being attacked with a pipe outside the Wisconsin State Fair (held in Milwaukee, the city of which he is the mayor). He was in congress way back when, and then later on he ran for mayor. What are his major accomplishments? I dunno.

I look at that side of the aisle in Wisconsin and don't see any reason for either the party faithful or the "people in the middle" to get fired up about the Democratic candidates.

My hunch is that the 2010 Wisconsin election cycle will be fought on a single front: jobs. And frankly, the majority party in the Wisconsin legislator, and the current governor (both Democrats) rightly deserve much of the blame for the sorry state of Wisconsin's economy. Democrats don't care about jobs, they care about unions. And they don't really care about unions, they only care about union bosses who tell union members how to vote. If Democrats really cared about putting people back to work, they would have to reverse their own policies, stop punishing employers, stop driving employers out of Wisconsin, stop scaring employers away from the state, etc. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin is standing in the way of the job creators.

Let companies create jobs in Wisconsin so that people can get back to work!

This is why I wouldn't support Mark Neumann. He goes off on these environmentalist tangents that, while they aren't terrible, are terribly off message. And he can say he wants to "go green" without hurting the business climate, or whatever, but it detracts from the message of JOBS JOBS JOBS! We all like the environment: don't litter, do carpool, don't take really long showers, etc. These are all good and nice things to do, but very few unemployed Wisconsinites are saying to themselves "Since I don't have a job to drive to, it sure is swell to think about all the carbon dioxide I'm not emitting!" Priorities, people!

RPW, Scott Walker campaign, conservative movement, listen up. You have your work cut out for you. This election will NOT be handed to you on a silver platter. This is the message: The (Democratic) Party is over. Let's get Wisconsin back to work!

So get to work!

Kind For Not Governor

josh@joshschroeder.net (Josh Schroeder) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:15:00 +0000

My Google Reader is telling me from multiple feeds that Congressman Ron Kind will not run for Governor in Wisconsin. I'm out the door to take a test, so I'll comment on this later.