Neumann Facing His Fears

This past weekend, gubernatorial candidate Mark Neumann staged a press conference outside the Democrat state-party convention.  Surrounded and outnumbered by liberal activists, he held his ground ready to discuss the issues.  He was heckled and booed by a posse of Tom Barrett supporters, and yet Neumann graciously thanked them for their views and kept talking about smaller government and fiscal conservatism.  Did that take political courage?  I would certainly think so.  But the irony should not be missed.

Neumann may be willing to go toe-to-toe with a crowd of liberal hecklers at their own convention, but he's unwilling to meet with the largest Hispanic newspaper in the state at his own campaign headquarters. 

The Backdrop: Interviewing Gubernatorial Candidates

Not more than a month ago, El Conquistador interviewed gubernatorial candidate Scott walker on a range of issues from immigration reform to job creation.  Walker told the paper that he opposed Arizona's immigration bill because it usurped the rights of the federal government while likely breeding a predilection for racial profiling.  A few weeks after the interview, Walker reversed his position announcing that new provisions in the Arizona bill safeguarded against racial profiling.

Ultimately, El Conquistador may fault Walker for his reversal, but we respect the fact that he had the backbone to meet El Conquistador to discuss immigration reform.  Neumann, however, failed the political courage test.  Last month, when the Associated Press prodded Neumann for answers about Arizona's bill, he declined to respond even though his opponents Tom Barrett and Scott Walker laid out their positions.  It wasn't until after Walker took a lot of heat for his reversal that Neumann was willing to lay out a brief summation his viewpoints and only on his campaign website.

In the past two weeks, El Conquistador has called the Neumann campaign four times for an interview.  Chris Lato, the communications director for Neumann's campaign, initially told El Conquistador that he would try to work us into Neumann's busy schedule. But since we last talked, he has refused to return our calls.

Playing it Safe on Immigration Politics

The issue, we believe, is that Neumann sees a danger in answering our questions.  Hispanic issues are a particularly volatile topic in the country right now, and meeting with us might be viewed as unnecessarily risky.  Answering questions about Arizona's immigration law, the callousness of mass deportation, the economic benefits of pathways to citizenship, and the equity of college tuition reimbursement are indeed risky for any politician.  It's quite possible that Neumann didn't want to take that chance.

On Neumann's website, for instance, it says he opposes amnesty, in-state tuition reimbursement, and driver's licenses for illegals.  However, he provides no insight on what he means by amnesty, why the children of illegal immigrants should bear the punitive burdens of their parents, or why it's a good policy to forbid undocumented workers the training to drive on public roads in a safe and responsible manner.  An interview with Neumann would clarify some of these more important points.

Conclusion

In September of last year, Neumann met with Hispanics to discuss his candidacy for governor.  He had answered a question posed by the son of illegal immigrants.  The young man had problems getting financial aid because his parents didn't have social security numbers.  At the time, Neumann stated it was a tough situation to be in and that as governor, he would certainly fix such problems in our education where the diligent were not rewarded.  Neumann showed his more empathetic side, but then again he was also courting Hispanics.

After their exchange, I posed a question about what we could do about the illegal immigrants who are here, but do not plan to leave?  I said that since the mass roundup and deportation of illegal immigrants was politically untenable for any party, we need to find fair ways of dealing with immigrants in such a way that it does not promote a permanent underclass.  For instance, denying a kid tuition reimbursement because his parents decided to break border laws years before is not only unfair to the child, but it has the result of building a future underclass of individuals since the child does not have an equal opportunity to receive an affordable education. 

We would like to know more about Neumann's views.  Without an interview, however, all we are left with is conjecture.  Right now, the ball is in Neumann's court.  Does he want to interview with the state's largest Hispanic newspaper, or does he think that the Hispanic community is inconsequential to his gubernatorial campaign?

What do you say, Mr. Neumann?  Are you interested in courting the Hispanic vote?  

Neumann Continues to Go Negative

Yesterday, gubernatorial candidate Mark Neumann issued a press release criticizing a poll that showed a commanding 20 point lead presence.  The poll was commissioned by Walker's campaign and conducted by the Tarrance Group, which questioned a sample of 5000 "likely GOP voters".

The poll confirmed that Walker has maintained a 20 point lead over Neumann since March, which shouldn't be much of a surprise since Walker won the GOP endorsement at the convention with no less than 90% of the party delegates.

Neumann's press release was aggressive and made a number of points, but due to length restraints, I will only focus on what I consider to be the most egregious.

Neumann's press release stated:

"Walker’s own record shows he flip-flopped on stimulus. First he wrote in the Wall Street Journal that he opposed it, then he flip-flopped on the issue. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on April 16, 2009: Back in January, Walker said he wouldn't ask for anything from the federal economic recovery plan…he has since put out a list of $130 million in stimulus funds that his agency chiefs are seeking or having secured."

Looking More Closely at Neumann's Press Release

Let's take Neumann's statement bit by bit.

First, Neumann has the chronology wrong.  Walker's first editorial wasn't in the Wall Street Journal; it was in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  The chronology is important in terms of context, and I will explain why in the next point.

Second, Walker did not categorically oppose accepting federal funds.  In January of 09, Walker wrote his first editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel laying out three conditions that must be met before he would accept federal stimulus.  This means, of course, that Walker would accept stimulus funds, period.  There is no way around it.  If those three conditions were met, Walker would gladly take the money.

Neumann's press release skipped Walker's first editorial and pointed to the editorial in the Wall Street Journal (written two months later) where Walker does not specifically mention his three conditions.  Why is this important?  If the reader wasn't aware of Walker's earlier editorial, reading the second might give them the false impression that Walker opposed stimulus funds in a categorical manner.

It is worth pointing out, however, that Walker did say he would not submit a wish list to the federal government because the funding wasn't free.  This is an important point because this is the only part of his Wall Street Journal editorial that alluded to his earlier three conditions.  But the bottom line is that Walker said he wouldn't accept federal funding if there were strings attached, and Neumann knows this.     

Third, Walker said he wouldn't pursue stimulus funds unless these three fiscal conditions were met: there must be no match required; there must be no long term commitments; and there must be no future operating costs to the county.  In other words, Walker will not accept government money if it means that county taxpayers had to pay for it.  By not mentioning Walker's three conditions upon which he would accept federal funds, Neumann's press release is disingenuous and fraudulent.

A Bit of Hypocrisy

What is most interesting about Neumann's criticism is that he, if in the same place, would do the same thing.  In fact, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel did a piece entitled,  "Neumann Benefits from, Yet Bashes Stimulus Plan."  Reporter Daniel Bice stated, "Neumann owns a stake in two companies that are benefiting big time from the very same stimulus plan that he criticizes."   Neumann not only benefited, but his company promoted the $8,000 tax credit for first-time home owners thanks to the stimulus bill.  That may not be a flip-flop, but it's certainly speaking out of both sides of his mouth.    

When asked to explain the inconsistency, Neumann's outsourced-campaign manager, Chip Englander, said that Neumann opposed the bill, but not the parts that benefit Neumann's company of course.  Those parts Neumann likes.  When Bice asked Walker adviser R.J. Johnson what he thought of Neumann's response, he said, "So he's okay with the part that makes him money so he can run for office.  Got it."

Conclusion

The content of Neumann's press release was surprising.  I was told that Chip Englander was known for waging bloody primaries and scorched-earth campaigns, but I also thought Neumann would reign him in a bit.  It appears, however, that Mark Belling was correct.  Neumann's campaign is warming up for the bloodiest primary in Wisconsin history.  And as long as Walker is comfortably ahead in the polls, we can expect Neumann to go negative.  Let's just hope when it's all said and done, Neumann doesn't alienate himself from all registered Republicans permanently.

The Influence of Tea Parties

The modern Tea Party movement began in 2009 as a grassroots reaction to excessive spending and unprecedented government growth.  The first protest began in Fort Myers, Florida when Mary Rakovich organized a few people to protest Obama's stimulus bill.  In the first month alone, Tea Parties sprang up in 40 different cities.  And when tea party favorite Scott Brown won a seat held by Democrats for nearly half a century, the major media was forced to recognize the Tea Party as a major political force. 

Tea Parties have remade the political landscape.  They're established in every state in every county.  And when government thought they could plow them over with rash spending, the political primaries have already proved them wrong.  But don't let the political pundits fool you, the country is not in an anti-incumbent mood; they are in an anti-spending mood.  If you look at the incumbents who have lost in recent primary elections, they were politicians that either supported bank bailouts, the stimulus bill, or Obamacare - all of which required big payouts.  Even Republicans who voted for TARP were tossed on the ear by Tea Party activists.

There is a substantial momentum behind the Tea Party movement, but if they get off-message, it could destroy the movement from the inside out.  If, for instance, Tea Parties begin to take on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and teenage pregnancies, it would not only water down their message, it would make them virtually indistinguishable from the Republican Party.  The appeal of tea parties isn't real because they mirror the GOP platform, but because fiscal restraint and government accountability cross party lines and ideological barriers.

Tea Parties and Immigration Reform

In April of this year, the Washington Independent ran a story that the Tea Party movement has slowly started to shift its focus toward illegal immigration.  A group called "Tea Parties against Amnesty" recently organized over 50 protests across the nation, and they are reaching out to members of tea parties that share their commitment to border security and reinforcing existing immigration laws.

There are two ways of looking at Tea Parties Against Amnesty; they are either a group composed of real tea party protesters that opted to join an anti-immigration movement, or they are an anti-immigration movement seeking to ride the coat-tails of the Tea Party.  From all indications, it appears that Tea Parties for Amnesty is doing the latter.  Let's take a look at these indications.

First, Tea Parties against Amnesty is spearheaded by an organization called "Americans for Legal Immigration".  It's somewhat disappointing, yet not entirely surprising, that the Washington Independent failed to point out that Tea Parties against Amnesty is a splinter group of Americans for Legal Immigration.  In fact, William Gheen, the President of Americans for Legal Immigration is also the Director of Tea Parties Against Amnesty.  The real question is why Gheen created a splinter group at all.  Perhaps there wasn't enough support for his anti-immigration organization.  Perhaps it's easier to peel off members of tea parties by creating another organization that bears the tea party name brand.

Second, as alluded to above, it appears that Americans for Legal Immigration are attempting to harvest members from tea parties to promote their cause.  They made an announcement that reads,

"Some of our diverse ALIPAC supporters are not fans of the Tea Party movement, however, they understand that 90% of Tea Party supporters oppose illegal immigration and amnesty with us. Most understand that we need broad coalitions to stop amnesty and reverse illegal immigration.

Some, unfortunately, are buying into the massive negative propaganda assault on the Tea Party movement. All we will say about that right now is that the Tea Party folks are not violent and not racist. They are being attacked in the same way our Border Security Movement has been attacked. They are being attacked because the powers that favor elite rule in America want to stop and divert the political revolution that is growing in America today. "

There are two things that jump out at me in these two paragraphs.  First, they attempt to merge their immigration movement with tea parties by finding a common enemy.  The message they are sending to tea party members is that the enemy of my friend is my enemy as well.   And second, after defending tea parties from accusations, they concede the need to build broader coalitions in order to stop amnesty.  They might as well tell tea party members they are better off merging in order to defend themselves against the liberal left.

And third, tea parties are premised on the principles of fiscal restraint, smaller government, and reduced taxes for future generations.  You will not find any legitimate tea party that doesn't mention these principles on their websites.  For example, Americans for Prosperity is a nationwide Tea Party organization with strong roots here in Wisconsin.  Their mission statement reads,

"AFP believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best safeguard to ensuring individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans  AFP educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits"

And yet, there is not a single sentence on the Tea Parties against Amnesty's website that refers to fiscal restraint, smaller government, or reduced taxes.  Some would argue that immigration is not a part of the tea party platform, and the fact that there is no mention of illegal immigrants, border control, or amnesty on the website of a well-known national tea party organization gives credence to this notion.

Tea Parties Against Amnesty is not a Real Tea Party

The only reports from media outlets that tie the platform of tea parties to immigration reform are those that quote Republican politicians speaking on behalf of tea parties.  And although tea parties have been reticent to endorse political candidates for office, Republicans are quick to claim "tea party" status for their own campaigns.  But tea parties are starting to understand that the GOP will try to bend the will of their movement to align to their own agenda.  If this were to happen, tea parties would lose their collective identity.

"Tea Parties against Amnesty" is not a Tea Party.  They are a copycat organization that seeks to amass tea party members into their organization even at the risk of harming the message of the Tea Party movement.  And the news media hasn't helped.  Headlines like "Tea Party Dabbles in Immigration Politics" and "Tea Party Movement to Rally Against Amnesty" are either un-researched or deliberately disingenuous.  Establishing links that don't exist does a disservice to truth-seekers and only bolsters the cause of anti-immigrant groups.

If legitimate Tea Parties wish to keep solidarity and protect their name brand, they ought to call out Tea Parties against Amnesty for what they truly are, an anti-immigrant group masquerading as a Tea Party.