Good news

Lawton would not have been an effective candidate for Governor anyway - she's not only underfunded, but is inexorably tied to Gov. Doyle, whose own flagging approval ratings were why this became an open seat to begin with.  Barrett gives us a fresh start, and he already has a large enough name ID that he doesn't need to jump in immediately.  My only concern is he may be putting himself at a financial disadvantage if he declares so late, which would squander the opportunity the divided GOP primary is giving us.  But I feel much better about us holding this seat than I did 3 months ago.

---

by: DFLer @ Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 20:17:58 PM UTC

Another rumor out there is that Doyle is having second thoughts about retiring...

Which bothers me, because he retired because of his unelectability.  Just because they stopped polling him doesn't mean any of that has changed.  I think unretiring always makes a candidate look unsure.  Not really a good front to put up.  

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 20:24:55 PM UTC

Doyle is undoubtedly closely paying attention to the NJ race

and thinking to himself: hmmm, if Corzine can overcome his massive unelectable numbers, well...

Plus if dilly-dallying Barrett does opt out, who's the best candidate left? Doyle's probably thinking he's still got better shot than Lawton. From the link:

What's more, Jefferson suggested, Doyle will go to great lengths to make sure Lt. Gov. Barb Lawton, the only Democrat in the race, doesn't win. She comes to the contest with a small war chest, few endorsements, little name recognition and none of Doyle's support.

Asked to tick off her accomplishments during more than seven years in office, Doyle could only come with this last week: "The lieutenant governor has worked hard on the arts and on a number of other projects."

---

by: homerun @ Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 22:14:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's the deal about Doyle

Of the folks I know who have worked on his campaigns or his staff, the general sense has always been that he loves being Governor, but flat-out doesn't like campaigning (you'd be surprised how many politicians are just the opposite).  He's a policy guy through and through.  So, if there were a legitimate path for him to make a comeback and continue being Governor I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't at least consider it.  That said, he has never gotten along with Lawton, as she was not his endorsed pick for the Lt. Gov spot back in 2002 but she won it at the convention anyway, forcing an odd marriage that neither party was happy with.  Don't interpret Doyle's undermining of Lawton as a total attempt to get back in, as it could just be him settling an old score and believing that she wouldn't be able to win and in turn would only further dampen his legacy.  I think he'll defer to Barrett in the end.  Out of curiosity, there were rumors a few months ago that Doyle would be given an Obama appointment, possibly as head of the Peace Corps.  Has there been any movement on that recently, now that it appears the Administration was involved in shoving Lawton out?  It seems like it'd be a nice way to get Doyle out of the picture.

---

by: DFLer @ Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 22:47:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lawton did not read Paterson's book.

---

by: fai calif @ Mon Oct 26, 2009 at 21:17:56 PM UTC

WI

Horrible news as I'm pretty sure Barrett won't run.

29/D/Male/NY-01

---

by: Tekzilla @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 00:59:45 AM UTC

Please explain your rationale for this belief

n/t

Male, 23, DC-At Large

---

by: JFM110 @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:03:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is no rationale

This person always thinks the sky is falling for the Dems every time a piece of news about us is written.

---

by: tim thomasen @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 01:17:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Based on what

is contained in the diary, my logic gets me to:

(1) Barrett probably is running;
(2) Lawton has probably been told privately that he is running and that he will be getting the establishment support; and
(3) Lawton probably dropped out because of it, and not to be with her family.

Do you have actual information to the contrary, or just the typical glass is half empty kind of feeling?

34, WM, Democrat, FL-11

---

by: spiderdem @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:02:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sheesh, Barrett already IS running

This is part of him running.

Tekzilla, your pessimism is fun most of the time, but this time you are just being clueless.  It would take a harpoon (or possibly Doyle) to keep him from running.

---

by: tommypaine @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 02:25:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I dont get why he isnt just banned

What does it take to get hit with the ban stick?

---

by: Andrew @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 22:08:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just ask ihatebush

---

by: DFLer @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 22:22:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hope Barrett runs

The little I know of him is mostly about him getting beaten by a pipe. People who perform well in crises are generally good leaders. And everyone seems to think he's good beyond that.

Based on this article from an hour ago it looks like he'll be deciding early November. Probably shortly after the election. If he decides then no reason for him to stay out of the field for long.

He'll have the backing of just about everyone and he can win. I hope he gets in for the good of the state of Wisconsin.  

---

by: Populista @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 05:41:54 AM UTC

Not sure I agree with this

People who perform well in crises are generally good leaders.

For example, the record of generals who became presidents is decidedly mixed.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 06:07:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not very mixed

and since only one has been in the modern age and he was a relatively very good one, I think the original statement is right on the money.

Good leaders need to be those people whose first actions and reactions are generally good.  You can't possibly be a good leader, especially these days, if you have to reverse course more often than extremely rarely.

---

by: tommypaine @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 08:10:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Grant doesn't count

because he was President in the 19th century? I beg to differ.

You might also look at Israel for examples of military men who became Prime Minister, since that's so much more common there. To take one example, Benjamin Netanyahu was a genuine military hero. Has he been a very good or inspired political leader?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 08:16:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A Couple of Points:

Barrett has been a good Mayor, anyway.  The pipe incident merely showed that he is a courageous human being--not a negative in my book.

And being good in times of crisis certainly doesn't hurt.  One can't approach it from a purely military perspective, certainly, but having proven that you can make the courageous choice is a virtue.

And the modern Presidency didn't start until, I would say, Theodore Roosevelt.  Grant doesn't count, though if he does, so do the strong Andrew Jackson and the underrated Zachary Taylor.

---

by: Sean Fitzpatrick @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 10:14:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And if Jackson and Taylor count...

Then so does that other General-cum-President, they guy named after the state in the northwest.

---

by: colbycakes @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 14:30:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, he counts, too

n/t

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 15:57:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

10 Generals

According to the Political Graveyard, 10 US Presidents had been generals: Washington, Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, and Dwight Eisenhower.  Thirteen others served in the military: Madison, Buchanan, Lincoln, McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and GHW Bush (aka Bush I, aka Bush 41).

A lot of the post Civil War guys were political generals.  Oddly enough, Garfield was a splendid staff officer because he was a politician.  Theodore Roosevelt was the only Colonel of the bunch.  Lincoln was a militia captain in the Black Hawk War and saw action.  Buchanan served in the War of 1812. Amazing.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 17:09:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just to be clear

I wasn't suggesting anything about Barrett, just disagreeing with the general premise that performance in a crisis has a direct correlation with being a good politician. People are good at different skills, and indeed, some politicians are more appropriate for war and others for peace, for example. Look at how Winston Churchill was defeated in the election right after the end of the war. But that's the meta-topic again, not an appraisal of Barrett. Your point about him - that he's been good in any case, and this only adds to his up side - is well taken.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 16:02:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just to be clear

I wasn't suggesting anything about Barrett, just disagreeing with the general premise that performance in a crisis has a direct correlation with being a good politician. People are good at different skills, and indeed, some politicians are more appropriate for war and others for peace, for example. Look at how Winston Churchill was defeated in the election right after the end of the war. But that's the meta-topic again, not an appraisal of Barrett. Your point about him - that he's been good in any case, and this only adds to his up side - is well taken.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 16:02:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Being a general 150 years ago is nothing like now

And while Grant was not a good President, he also was not the worst President of that era either.

The main point remains.  In this day and age, where any change of path is called flipflopping, a person with good instincts, especially in a crisis, is an excellent leader.

Not all Generals have that instinct, even great ones.  Grant for example identified a winning philosophy (we can afford men to die more than they can), but he had few snap decisions as a General.  Great leaders also study and develop good paths forward.  That is another good trait, with the important part being as with anything studied a long time... the buck stops here.  You hear from everyone, then decide, and move forward.  That's not the same as a good instinct, but another type of valuable leader.  Really great ones will have both instincts.

---

by: tommypaine @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 06:03:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are you sure you aren't thinking about his brother?

Netanyahu's older brother led (and was killed on) the Entebbe raid. Binyamin seems to have served in an elite unit, but not to have done anything particularly stunning.

Even leaving that aside, character matters too. Netanyahu is a warmonger with a decidedly spotty ethical record. He may also be a brave soldier, but that doesn't negate his extreme hawkishness.

Sure, plenty of Israeli generals have made disappointing politicians. But several have succeeded - think Sharon and Rabin. Their batting average is probably no worse than most Israeli politicians - although I'll grant that given their problems with political corruption, that isn't saying too much.

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sat Oct 31, 2009 at 01:53:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not so sure Sharon was a very good PM

And yeah, I wasn't confusing Benjamin Netanyahu with his brother. He himself is a decorated veteran.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 06:15:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

i appreciate pan's point

just watched a pbs special last night about the 30s - mainly about herbert hoover - he was brilliant in a crisis before becoming president.  he was a terrible president.

there is nothing besides running hard for office and being successful in office that prepares a person to run for higher office.  and of course even that is not a sure indicator.  i'm afraid performing well in unrelated pressure situations (as a general, or qb on a football field, or fighting a criminal) does not presage success as a candidate or officeholder.

tom barrett does have very relevant success and i think he is the dream candidate here.

---

by: st paul sage @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 16:42:12 PM UTC

But that's not really the point

Surely someone who reacts well under pressure is more LIKELY to be a great leader than someone who starts crying and screaming the sky is falling.

It's no guarantee, but it is a signal of quality that should be considered.

---

by: tommypaine @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 06:05:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]