Wisconsin Vote
2004

As a production assistant with Wisconsin Public Television I worked on the website wisconsinvote.org during the 2000 and 2002 election cycles. When the 2004 election came around I had left that job and and was living and working in Washington, D.C., but I persuaded my former boss to take me on as a freelance writer, ultimately providing a candidate profile for all Wisconsin Democratic, Republican, Independent, Green, Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates in that year’s federal elections.  In the process I conducted interviews with most of the candidates, including several incumbents (Representatives Baldwin, Green, Kind, Petri) in their Washington, D.C. offices.  The general election candidate profiles and election overviews appear below (primary election profiles and overviews have not been included here), along with a transcript of my interview with Rep. Baldwin and a feature on third-party politics.  

Wisconsin Vote, 2004: House and Senate race overviews

General election Senate campaign overview

Two-term Democrat Russ Feingold is up for re-election on November 2nd.

During the GOP primary campaign, the four Republican candidates mounted a relentless assault on the incumbent’s voting record, largely targeting his “no” votes on the USA Patriot Act and war in Iraq. Profiting from an aggressive television and radio ad campaign in the last weeks of the primary campaign, Oconomowoc Republican Tim Michels won what many considered an upset victory in the four-candidate GOP field.

A 20-year Army veteran (12 years active duty), Michels has more recently served as vice president of the family construction business. The candidate enthusiastically supports President Bush and efforts the administration has made in conducting its war on terrorism. He credits the USA Patriot Act with keeping terrorists out of the country and has said no civil liberties violations have occurred as a result of the bill. Michels promotes low taxes, and claims the incumbent has voted in the Senate to raise taxes more than 200 times, thereby undermining business and contributing to state job losses.

Michels, like the president, supports health savings accounts, associated health plans and medical malpractice and tort reform. But unlike President Bush, the candidate backs the “safe” re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada. When Michels appeared in a television campaign ad asserting that Feingold opposed such a measure, the incumbent denounced the ad as “just plain false,” and many newspaper editorial boards across the state agreed. Tim Roby, a Michels campaign spokesman, downplayed the controversy as a “matter of semantics” and said the important question is which candidate gets results.

Michels has made one previous run for office, losing a 1998 bid for the Wisconsin Senate.

In his 12 years as senator, Democrat Russ Feingold has attended almost 900 constituent listening sessions around the state. He says his legislative priorities, which include fundamental reform of the health care system and an increase in the minimum wage, are shaped by concerns raised by constituents in those sessions.

Feingold eagerly defends his lone Senate vote against the Patriot Act, noting that a number of his Senate colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, now share his concerns about civil liberties and law enforcement abuses the legislation may be permitting. The senator is a co-sponsor of the SAFE Act, a bipartisan Senate bill that proposes to modify provisions of the Patriot Act he originally proposed. A member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Feingold chaired the Constitution Subcommittee that convened hearings on the Patriot Act in the weeks following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. He is currently the ranking Democrat on the committee (after his party surrendered its Senate majority in the 2002 mid-term election).

Feingold served 10 years in the Wisconsin State Senate before defeating two-term Republican incumbent Bob Kasten in the 1992 U.S. Senate race. Six years ago the senator voluntarily limited campaign fundraising and expenditures, making his re-election bid a referendum (of sorts) on campaign finance reform. Outspent 2-to-1 by GOP challenger Mark Neumann, Feingold prevailed by the narrowest of margins – 38,000 votes, or 51 percent of the vote - providing a lift for the campaign finance reform bill that bears his name (which in 1998 had not yet been passed). This year, Feingold enjoys a sizeable fundraising advantage over his Republican opponent, netting by late summer more campaign funds than he did through all of 1998.

Summer polls suggested that Feingold was beatable, with his statewide approval rating hovering below 50 percent. Two polls conducted in the days following Michels’ September 14th primary win put less than 10 points between the two candidates, with Feingold claiming the support of just over half of those surveyed. But as the general election campaign has moved close to Election Day, a range of polls has shown Feingold pulling ahead by increasingly wide margins. A Wisconsin Public Radio-St. Norbert College poll conducted October 4-13, put Feingold ahead by 23 points, as did a Chicago Tribune/WGN survey taken at the same time.

Michels dismissed the recent polls as “communistic,” but a campaign spokesperson said the candidate was not speaking in a “serious vain.”

A third candidate in the contest is Fond du Lac Libertarian Arif Khan. A “card-carrying” Libertarian for less than two years, Khan says he came to believe the country had lost its way following the contentious 2000 presidential election. After 9/11 Khan’s apprehensions were gravely magnified. He calls the USA Patriot Act, the antiterrorism bill passed by Congress just weeks after the al Qaeda terrorist attacks, “the most horrendous act that was ever passed by the Congress as far as our civil liberties are concerned,” and believes Americans are losing their liberties “every single day.”

Khan proposes to immediately halt the growth of government, believing high taxes and regulation are a drain on jobs and the economy. He points to the state of Nevada as a model for the nation, touting that state’s lack of individual and corporate income taxes and lax regulation of business. “People get into business to make money, and they go naturally where there’s a better chance and better opportunity to do the things that they want to do without having some lonely bureaucrat telling them what they can and can’t do,” says Khan.

The candidate has been excluded from all candidate debates in the Senate campaign. He charges the Republican and Democrat in the race are focusing on “insignificant things that really don’t make any difference for the state of Wisconsin.” This is Khan’s first run for office.

Independent Eugene Hem is the fourth candidate in the race. A retired high school science teacher, Hem has twice before run for Senate, garnering nearly 10,000 votes four years ago and placing last in the 1998 contest. In 1997 Hem made an unsuccessful bid for state superintendent of schools. That same year he resigned from the Milwaukee public school system after being suspended for 30 days without pay for “reckless abandonment of students under his personal supervision and unexplained absences without notice from his assigned place of teaching.”

Hem describes his campaign as a “shoestring” operation and says he has no hope of winning on November 2nd. “I’m more concerned about issues than advertising my name,” says Hem. The candidate supports the proposed federal amendment to ban gay marriage, believing that extending the institution of marriage to same-sex couples would be “irrational.” He calls for a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq “as soon as can be possible.” Hem also supports increased pay for teachers. The candidate is 71 years old. He lives in Appleton.

Published October 27

Sources:

Candidate campaign Web sites

Wisconsin Public Radio interview with Eugene Hem, October 28, 2004

Wisconsin Vote interview with Arif Khan, October 22, 2004

Associated Press State & Local Wire, “Michels assails ‘communistic’ polls,” October 15, 2004; story by Frederic J. Frommer

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Suspended MPS teacher submits resignation,” May 31, 1997

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Two new polls put Feingold in front; But Michels still has time, pollster says,” September 24, 2004; story by Graeme Zielinski

General election House campaign overview

1st Congressional District

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Janesville) is a three-term incumbent expected this year to repeat past electoral triumphs. Ryan’s 1998 House bid was his first run for public office. Only 28 at the time, he handily defeated Democrat Lydia Spotswood to succeed outgoing Republican Rep. Mark Neumann, who ran for Senate that year. Ryan is considered a rising star in the Republican Party and secured a prime time speaking slot at the party’s presidential nominating convention in September. The incumbent has collected more than $1 million in his current bid for Congress, while his three opponents have barely raised $50,000 combined. Ryan faces perennial Democratic candidate Jeff Thomas, whom he defeated by wide margins in the 2000 and 2002 elections. Libertarian Don Bernau and Independent Norman Aulabaugh round out the field

Orthopedic surgeon Jeffrey Thomas, a Janesville Democrat, has made five previous attempts for the House seat now held by Ryan. Thomas has amassed considerable debts in previous runs for office, while raising only a fraction of what his opponents have managed. But Thomas, whose top issue is health care reform, holds firm to his belief that voters need to “put a doctor in the House.”

“I’ve got the experience, persistence and courage to run,” said Thomas in 1999, then preparing to make his fourth run for office.

He may have all of those things. What Thomas does not have may be more telling. His campaign Web site is no longer online and his telephone phone has been disconnected. The candidate has made himself unavailable for pre-election interviews, conducting a minimalist public campaign on a slim budget.

First-time candidate Norman Aulabaugh, an Orfordville Independent, is a Navy veteran and a retired Janesville businessman. He believes Republicans and Democrats in Congress are mired in partisan discord, allowing urgent problems to remain unsolved. He is a sharp critic of the incumbent Paul Ryan on Social Security, Medicare and the budget, believing the incumbent’s record on those issues amounts to a lack of leadership and responsibility. Aulabaugh supports a balanced budget amendment, universal health care, and investment in new technologies as a way to create jobs. For an Independent, Aulabaugh has had unusual success as a fundraiser, amassing by mid-September four times what Democrat Jeff Thomas had managed.

Greenfield Libertarian Don Bernau is also a first-time candidate. He promotes small, accountable government and proposes to eliminate the income tax. He advocates full privatization of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Bernau is the current chairman of the Libertarian Party of Milwaukee. He owns a home improvements business.

2nd Congressional District

Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin is seeking a fourth term in Congress. In two previous re-election bids she faced very different opponents. Four years ago Baldwin narrowly won re-election over UW-Madison professor John Sharpless, a moderate Republican. In 2002 conservative minister Ron Greer attempted to connect Baldwin, a lesbian, with a “radical leftist gay agenda.” Baldwin won re-election by a wide margin. This year first-time candidate Dave Magnum will attempt to return the House seat to the Republican column for the first time in six years, and has waged an aggressive challenge. Baldwin has replied with “Magnum Magnified,” a feature on her campaign Web site intended to refute charges leveled by Magnum that she considers inaccurate. As in past campaigns, health care is a top priority for Baldwin. She is a member of the House Judiciary and Budget Committees.

With the careful grooming of area GOP insiders, Portage Republican Dave Magnum is being positioned as a pragmatic, moderate alternative to Baldwin, whom the Magnum camp portrays as ineffective and out of step with 2nd District voters. If elected, Magnum says he intends to be a “citizen lawmaker,” with no ambition of making a career in politics. “I’m not a politician; I’m a businessman,” says Magnum. “I plan to go to Congress with an open mind and the best interests of this district in my heart.” Magnum promotes low taxes and opposes efforts to privatize Social Security. The candidate’s Magnum Broadcasting Group operates radio and television stations across the state. This is Magnum’s first run for office.

3rd Congressional Distict

Four-term incumbent Rep. Ron Kind (D-La Crosse) has become a sharp critic of President Bush, denouncing the administration on tax and budget issues, health care reform, job losses and foreign policy. Kind believes the war in Iraq has been particularly costly as a diversion from the larger war on terrorism and a potent recruiting tool for terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. Kind voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq but played a leading role among House Democrats advocating that all diplomatic options first be exhausted. The Republican challenger in the race chastises Kind for wavering in his position on the war and voting to obstruct the president’s legislative agenda. Kind has also taken hits from the Republican for his “unabashed” support of free trade. The incumbent deflects the criticism and points to efforts he’s made to create conditions for “fair” trade. Kind sits on the House budget and education committees.

Republican state Sen. Dale Schultz considers himself a “relatively conservative guy,” but he’s more eager to tout his record of bipartisan cooperation in the Wisconsin Legislature and his advocacy of sensible trade policy. Schultz hopes to return the 3rd Congressional District to the GOP, following an eight-year electoral drought, and points to his own base of voter support in the southern quarter of the district as one factor favoring his candidacy. The candidate believes Kind is out of touch with 3rd District voters and more interested in ingratiating himself with Democratic Party leaders than “actually representing the very independent minded voters of western Wisconsin.” Schultz says he agrees with 95 percent of what President Bush stands for and has made several recent campaign appearances with the president.

4th Congressional District

Nine-term incumbent Democrat Jerry Kleczka announced last January that he would not seek re-election in Wisconsin’s 4th Congressional District. Eight candidates - two Republicans, three Democrats, and three others - quickly lined up to replace him. Following Democratic and Republican primaries in September, five candidates remain.

With the endorsement of leading Republicans and a four-to-one spending advantage over his opponent, Republican Corey Hoze was widely considered the favorite in the Republican primary. But Milwaukee Republican Jerry Boyle won an upset victory on September 14th, earning the right to represent the GOP on the November ballot. A Marine captain, Boyle has recently returned from service in Kuwait and Iraq and strongly supports the Bush administration’s efforts in combating terrorism. The candidate does not, however, identify with “straight-line” conservatism, noting: “I have a heart. I have a conscience.” Boyle is a criminal defense attorney with the Boyle Law Group, a firm headed by his father, Gerald P. Boyle. He was recently married, postponing his honeymoon until after the election.

Milwaukee Democrat Gwen Moore is a 16-year veteran of state government, having served in the Assembly before winning election to the Senate. She hopes to become Wisconsin’s first black representative in Congress. Moore is an outspoken critic of President Bush, calling for the repeal of several notable legislative initiatives the administration has pushed through Congress. In June Moore received a key endorsement from an influential political action committee, which has raised substantial funds on her behalf. But the candidate has had little difficulty raising her own funds, with total campaign contributions exceeding $800,000 by the end of September. Recently Moore ordered her congressional campaign staff to return a $980 donation from her state Senate campaign committee. Revelations of the donation caused a minor campaign controversy.

Independent Tim Johnson stepped down as a Milwaukee County supervisor last April and hopes now to bring his cooperative approach and moderate issues platform to Washington, D.C. He advocates a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq by next spring, favors an increase in the minimum wage, and believes government has a “moral” obligation to provide universal health coverage. Johnson is a graduate of West Point and an adjunct professor of theology in the Milwaukee area. He served as an Army platoon leader during the Persian Gulf War of 1991-'91.

Colin Hudson, the Constitution Party nominee, has based his low-key campaign on a single issue, abortion. He advocates a total ban on all abortions.

Robert Raymond, a Milwaukee Independent, is the fifth candidate on the ballot. He has made two previous runs for U.S. Senate.

5th Congressional District

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. is the longest serving Republican in the Wisconsin congressional delegation. First elected in 1978, Sensenbrenner has in past sessions chaired the House Science Committee and served as House impeachment manager in the 1999 Senate impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. Since January 2001 the Republican has chaired the House Committee of the Judiciary, helping steer through Congress the USA Patriot Act as well as leading efforts to create the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and eliminate the Immigration Naturalization Service, whose duties DHS subsumed. Sensenbrenner has consistently secured wide margins of victory in past bids for re-election, winning 86 percent of the vote two years ago, and rarely failing to muster less than 70 percent. He recently quashed speculation this his next term, if re-elected, would be his last. Sensenbrenner is 61 years old.

Glendale Democrat Bryan Kennedy is making his first run for public office. With a doctorate in romance languages, Kennedy has taught Portuguese at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee since 2000. The candidate’s proposals include catastrophic health care insurance for all Americans, hazard pay for U.S. troops in combat zones, and repealing Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent of earners. He calls himself a political moderate and believes Rep. Sensenbrenner is an ineffective legislator whose votes in Congress serve his own financial interests. Recently the Democrat published an elaborate campaign pamphlet, “How Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner Lost His Way: What Millions of Dollars and 26 Years in D.C. Does to Your Priorities,” a gambit that underscores the success Kennedy’s campaign has had in raising its own dollars (in mid-October Kennedy estimated total campaign contributions to be about $250,000).

Tim Peterson, a Libertarian, is the third candidate in the 5th Congressional District contest. He says he wanted to educate voters about the Libertarian platform and offer them another choice on November 2nd. Peterson believes a vote for either the Republican or the Democrat in the race is a vote for “an increase in the size of government” and “an expansion of our interventionist foreign policy.” He favors privatizing all health services, Social Security and education, and promotes a “pro peace” agenda. The candidate has lived in the 5th District since 1997 and currently serves as president of a marketing and software company in New Berlin.

6th Congressional District

Incumbent Rep. Tom Petri (R-Fond du Lac) has represented the 6th Congressional District since 1979. A long-time member of the House education and transportation committees, Petri now serves as vice chairman of both bodies. He has been instrumental in securing a better return on state taxpayer dollars in transportation funding, and helped negotiate the final version of the 2001 No Child Left Behind education bill. Petri has at times demonstrated a willingness to vote independently of the majority of his GOP colleagues. In recent years he has cast decisive votes on campaign finance reform and opposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, which the Bush administration favors. Unopposed in 2002, Petri faces two challengers on November 2nd - Democrat Jef Hall and Carol Ann Rittenhouse, a Wisconsin Green. The incumbent has not experienced a close election since 1992 when Peg Lautenschlager took 47 percent of the vote in a two-candidate race.

At 31, Oshkosh Democrat Jef Hall is the youngest congressional candidate in Wisconsin this year. With the help of more than 200 volunteers, Hall has waged a modest grassroots campaign, hitting as many spots in the 6th District as limited time and campaign funds have allowed. Hall identifies health care reform as his top legislative priority. He favors a free-market scheme for universal health coverage that empowers the government to negotiate for better prices on a range of health services. Born in Wheaton, Ill., Hall moved to Wisconsin at the age of three, and has lived in the 3rd District ever since. Short on cash, he left the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh before earning a degree, subsequently finding work across a range of occupations. He is currently employed as a program manager for a firm specializing in workplace safety.

Carol Ann Rittenhouse is the Wisconsin Green Party nominee in the 6th Congressional contest. One of two Greens running for Congress, Rittenhouse says she entered the race with the future of her seven grandchildren in mind. The candidate calls the environment her major policy concern, but she proposes reforms on a wide range of issues, including education, health care, the media and civil rights. Rittenhouse is an outspoken critic of President Bush, denouncing the war in Iraq as a “pre-emptive mistake.” She believes the “imperialist posture” of the administration’s overall foreign policy needs to be revised and calls for greater international cooperation. Defense spending, she contends, is diverting critical resources away from Americans in need, particularly in the area of health care. Rittenhouse is the Wisconsin Green Party’s 6th District co-coordinator. She is self-employed in real estate and property management.

7th Congressional District

Democratic Rep. David Obey is the longest-serving member of the Wisconsin congressional delegation. First elected in the early months of the first Nixon administration - he replaced Republican Congressman Mel Laird, whom President Nixon appointed secretary of Defense - Obey is seeking a 19th term. The incumbent has faced few serious challenges in past re-election bids, and with two sparsely funded third-party candidates in the race this year, and no Republican, that’s not expected to change. Obey is the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, annually bringing back to Wisconsin significant federal funds for projects and services. He has been sharply critical of President Bush, particularly on the budget and the war in Iraq. Last year he called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and continues to voice harsh disapproval of the administration’s Iraq policy. Obey recently celebrated his 66th birthday. He lives in Wausau.

The Wisconsin Green Party’s 7th District candidate, Mike Miles, says he knows how to “organize and empower people to impress their demands on those who hold the keys.” He’s gained that knowledge from years of peace and social justice activism, from northern Wisconsin to the West Bank. A member of the Catholic Worker movement, Miles has committed his life - and the Luck, Wis. community farm he founded nearly 20 years ago - to nonviolence and sustainable living. The candidate, who says he is running against the “evils of incumbency,” believes the Democrat incumbent, Dave Obey, is too beholden to outside interests and cannot effectively represent the interests of 7th District constituents. “Americans have a love-hate relationship with power,” says Miles. “We want the Lakers to win because they are glamorous and unstoppable, until they do it year after year after year. Obey is the Lakers and I’m Detroit, and the people are ready.”

Larry Oftedahl, a Constitution Party candidate from Barron, is making his first run for elective office. A substitute teacher and full-time inventory coordinator for Jennie-O Turkey Store Company, Oftedahl says he regrets not having more time for campaigning, especially after the Republican dropped out of the race last summer. His affiliation with the Constitution Party dates back only four years, but the candidate says he has long valued the party’s core principles of protecting constitutional rights and promoting limited government. A graduate of two religious colleges, Oftedahl likewise shares the party’s aim of restoring “American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.” The candidate opposes abortion without exception, seeks a repeal of the USA Patriot Act, and calls for gradual privatization of Social Security and Medicare.

8th Congressional District

Republican Mark Green, a three-term incumbent, has won his two previous re-election bids with more than 70 percent of the vote. With a vast fundraising advantage over his Democratic opponent and a tangible record of legislative achievement in the House, Green appears likely to win another victory on November 2nd. The Republican has been influential in shaping antiterrorism legislation, including the homeland security bill still being negotiated by a House-Senate conference committee. A passionate advocate for faith-based initiatives, Green introduced legislation earlier this year to create a permanent office of faith-based and community initiatives in the White House. Green sits on the House Judiciary and International Relations committees, and serves as assistant House majority whip. He is married with three children.

Long involved with the Democratic Party at the state and county level, Appleton Democrat Dottie LeClair is making her first bid for federal office (she previously made an unsuccessful run for county board). She draws a close connection between the Republican incumbent Mark Green and President Bush, criticizing their collective efforts on the Iraq war, homeland security, jobs and taxes. LeClair’s platform in many ways reflects the national Democratic platform, with calls to repeal tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans and eliminate tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. On health care she goes further, advocating universal coverage. The Democrat derides her opponent as a “mouthpiece” for the Bush administration. “His votes reflect the interests of George Bush, not the constituents of the 8th Congressional District,” she says. LeClair works for an Appleton area insurance company.

Published October 27, 2004

Sources:

Candidate campaign Web sites and press releases

Constitution Party Web site

Wisconsin Vote candidate interviews

Associated Press, “Surgeon Jeff Thomas says he plans to run for House again,” July 6, 1999

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Battle-hardened Boyle tackles tough race in 4th District,” September 5th, 2004; article by Larry Sandler

Wisconsin Vote, 2004: Senate candidate profiles: Russ Feingold and Tim Michaels

With 22 years in state and federal office, Sen. Russ Feingold says he prefers the phrase “experienced legislator” to “career politician.” Either way, the Middleton Democrat believes he is a different kind of elected representative. “I go to every single Wisconsin county every year and just listen to people first,” the incumbent recently told Wisconsin Public Radio.

During his two terms in the U.S. Senate, Feingold has held 864 constituent listening sessions, giving residents in Wisconsin’s 72 counties the opportunity to set the topics and speak their minds. As a result, the senator says, he’s “able to respond and stand up for Wisconsin in Washington on issues like health care costs and jobs, because I really get a sense of the intensity of the issue and what people think we should do about it by holding town meetings this way.”

Indeed, Feingold says his legislative priorities in the Senate “come directly” from those sessions. Anticipating a third term, he identifies health care for all Americans and deficit reduction as major objectives. And he says the United States needs to get the fight against terrorism “right” by focusing on the terrorist organizations here and abroad.

The Bush administration’s war on terrorism has been a major issue in the Senate campaign, with the Republican challenger Tim Michels criticizing Feingold for “a pattern of being soft” on national defense and homeland security. The senator counters by pointing to recent votes he cast in support of defense appropriations and federal funding for homeland security, contending that he has been “very aggressive” on that front.

On the Patriot Act, Feingold says that despite his “no” vote, he supports many of the bill’s provisions. He believes, for example, that restructuring the CIA-FBI relationship - tearing down the “wall” between the agencies - was a necessary measure. “The provisions that I objected don’t have anything to do with terrorism,” Feingold maintains. “They are provisions that allow the government to come in to get the library records of people who have done absolutely nothing wrong.”

Feingold says his goal is to “fix” the Patriot Act and has co-sponsored a bipartisan Senate bill - the Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003 (SAFE Act) - that seeks to restore privacy protections for library and bookseller records as well as protecting computer users in libraries. The bill also targets “roving” wiretap abuses and would impose limitations on judicial search warrant authority.

Michels has frequently criticized the senator’s lone vote against the Patriot Act. “I’ve looked at the Patriot Act, and I don’t see what you saw in it there that you were concerned about,” Michels told Feingold in a recent televised debate. The Republican credits the legislation with keeping terrorists out of the country and preventing another terrorist attack in the United States during the last three years. He also contends that no civil liberties have been violated as a result of the bill.

“Mr. Michels frankly doesn’t even understand what he’s talking about,” says the senator. Pointing out that the bill calls for secret proceedings in special intelligence courts, Feingold argues that his opponent probably does not “even know half the stuff that is going on.”

On Iraq, the senator believes Michels has failed to acknowledge the “very harsh” on-the-ground reality in that country. “It’s an insult [to the families of U.S. personnel] to suggest there’s nothing going on there that isn’t a serious problem,” Feingold told the Republican in a debate. Michels concedes that circumstances in Iraq during the last 18 months have been difficult but says the news media has been too focused on negative aspects of the process.

Feingold, who voted against the October 2002 Senate resolution authorizing war in Iraq, says he tried at that time to raise the right questions. He notes that many of those questions are “arising now,” including the war’s impact on the broader fight against terrorism and the necessity of securing Iraqi munitions. Feingold says he never got good answers to those questions, and “now we’re in the position we’re in now.”

As for an Iraq exit strategy, the senator believes the U.S. “cannot just stay there, and we cannot just cut and run.” He says the “only realistic alternative” is to gradually move U.S. troops out of the country and replace them with an Arab and Islamic force. He adds that Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry stands a better chance than President Bush in bringing moderate Arab countries together and taking the “heavy burden” off the United States.

Health care has been another contentious issue in the Senate campaign, particularly on the issue of prescription drug re-importation. In a much remarked upon campaign ad, Michels said: “Unlike Russ Feingold, I’ll fight for your right to buy safe and affordable prescription drugs from Canada.” The incumbent denounced the ad as “just plain false,” and many state newspaper editorial boards agreed. “Any examination of Feingold’s record compels the conclusion that … he has supported several measures to win this benefit,” said the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

In addition to supporting a “meaningful” prescription drug benefit, Feingold promotes a state-federal initiative to expand health coverage to all Americans. The senator says the federal government would provide technical assistance, oversight and “significant” funding, but states would have the latitude to determine which plan best suits their needs. Feingold believes as much as $34 billion a year in federal, state and local government spending could be eliminated by extending coverage to those who currently seek “basic care” in hospital emergency rooms.

The senator identifies estate tax revenue as a way to fund his health care proposal. Calling repeal of the estate tax “irresponsible,” Feingold says he would raise the exemption to “perhaps $10 million” per couple. (The current exemption is $1.5 million, rising to $3.5 million by 2010, the year the tax is repealed.) Feingold, who voted against the deferred repeal three years ago, says the government needs the revenue “to take care of this health care crisis that’s destroying so many businesses in our state and in our country.”

If estate taxes have not received much play in the Senate campaign, taxes in general have emerged as a key issue. Michels has aggressively criticized Feingold’s record on taxes, arguing that the senator has voted to increase taxes more than 200 times and repeatedly opposed elimination of the death and marriage taxes. Feingold says Michels is distorting his record. “My opponent wants you to think I oppose tax cuts, but I’ve voted for over a trillion dollars in tax cuts,” he says in one television ad. “Tax cuts I’ve opposed were irresponsible, or added to our record deficit - the ones Tim Michels would have rubber stamped.”

Michels has also targeted Feingold on campaign finance reform, the senator’s ranking achievement in Congress. Deriding the McCain-Feingold reform bill as a “complete disaster,” the Republican points to a loophole in election law that has permitted so-called 527 political groups to pour millions of dollars into the 2004 election campaign. “Oops, missed that one,” Michels quipped in a debate.

Feingold, for his part, has co-sponsored legislation to “make absolutely clear” that federal election laws apply to 527 organizations. But he insists the original bill was intended to curtail unlimited soft-money contributions from corporations, unions and individuals, not directly confront 527s. “Anyone who criticizes McCain-Feingold for the other problems in the system misses the point” says the Democrat. “The fact is [Sen.] John McCain and I succeeded in exactly what we were trying to do.”

Feingold notes that almost all of his campaign ads have been “entirely positive,” focusing on his legislative achievements in the Senate and his agenda in a new six-year term. At the same time, his campaign has been willing to go on the offensive. “I have come to the conclusion that you simply cannot let outrageous charges be unanswered,” he said in a recent interview.

The senator grew up in Janesville, where he graduated in 1971 from Janesville Craig High School. He earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison four years later, secured a Rhodes scholarship to study at Oxford University, and completed a law degree at Harvard in 1979. Feingold practiced law in Madison for six years, winning a seat in the Wisconsin Senate in 1982. He served 10 years in that chamber before defeating two-term Republican incumbent Bob Kasten in the 1992 U.S. Senate race.

Feingold is married with two daughters. His wife Mary has two sons from a previous marriage.

Published October 28

Sources:

Russ Feingold for U.S. Senate campaign Web site

Tim Michels for U.S. Senate campaign Web site

Associated Press, “Feingold, Michels battle in final debate” October 25, 2004; story by Xiao Zhang

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial, “ Michels ad too misleading,” September 25, 2004

Wisconsin Public Radio interview with Sen. Feingold, October 28, 2004

Wisconsin Vote, 2004: Senate candidate profiles: Arif Khan

Arif Khan, a Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate, says he despises politics and politicians. But slavery and oppression, Khan says, are “two words I hate with all my being.” He believes that government is no longer the servant of the people but their master, and with Americans “in jeopardy of losing their civil liberties,” Khan says he had no choice but to “defend this country’s great heritage of liberty and free enterprise.”

Indian by birth but American “by choice,” Khan says he came to the U.S. from Kuwait in 1977 to pursue the American dream. “I came to this country to be free, to pursue my bliss, to be my own man,” he says.

At the outset, Khan recalls, the American dream seemed within his grasp. He attended Purdue University and worked his way up from fast food restaurant cook to door-to-door salesman to network engineer. He is currently vice president of a management-consulting firm.

But lately, Khan notes, “it is becoming vividly clear that for most of us [the American dream] is no longer possible. We are up to our eyeballs in debt. The country is looked upon as a big bully around the world. Being American is an invitation to terror and harassment,” he says.

Yet Khan still believes America to be “the best hope of humanity,” and has focused his candidacy on educating people about their basic rights and the limited role the nation’s founders intended for government, at home and abroad. Our federal government today, he says, is seriously distorting that intent. “Truth is a bitter pill and it is hard to stomach, especially when you find the very people you trusted have betrayed your confidence,” the candidate said recently.

Khan believes the Bush administration is especially culpable. “Every day more and more of us are realizing that the current administration is morally and ethically corrupt to its very core,” he writes on his campaign Web site. Khan points to U.S. foreign policy in particular, which he calls a “complete disaster.”

Where Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry has been careful not to call the president a liar, Khan applies no such discretion. He says the American people were “bamboozled” into believing Iraq posed an imminent threat “to our way of life,” alleging that President Bush knew the case for war was flawed. “He lied to us and continues to do so still,” says Khan.

The candidate calls for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, but believes “just pulling out” is not enough. “We must address the how and why of this nightmare,” he says.

But while Khan believes the world “can no longer afford the arrogance” of President Bush, his critique of U.S. foreign policy is not limited to the current administration. “Our government has been systematically undermining our value across the globe for far too long, and all we have to show for that is absolute disaster after disaster,” he says.

Iraq is one example. Khan says the U.S. government in the 1980s supplied weapons and money to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as he waged war against “his, and our, mortal enemy,” Iran. The candidate likewise maintains that Washington backed Osama bin Laden and the Taliban during the decade-long Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that began in 1979.

“In a nutshell,” he says, “our government servants are the mastermind behind every dictator and tyrant.”

Khan says he supports a strong national defense, but insists that U.S. forces should not become entangled in foreign conflicts. “We want to let the world know that we will defend ourselves at all costs, but we are not interested in being the world’s policeman,” he says.

The candidate does, however, advocate a global role for the United States. With its privilege and wealth, Khan believes America has a “moral responsibility” to assist developing nations. But he says the U.S. must learn from history that “development can happen only when there is peace. Issues are resolved by peace alone, not war,” he maintains.

On domestic matters, Khan proposes that government ease “excessive” regulations on business, reduce taxes, control spending, and eliminate trade barriers.

Khan offers a detailed health care plan that calls for comprehensive free market reform. He favors tax-exempt medical savings accounts for individuals and proposes to restructure tax policy so that health care expenditures are 100 percent tax deductible. The candidate believes Medicare and Medicaid “have clearly failed,” and promotes gradual privatization of both programs.

He strongly defends the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, believing gun control measures oppose “the basic right of freedom.”  

“It is time to reign the government back within the confines of the Constitution,” says Khan.

A first-time candidate for elective office, Khan has been all but ignored by the media and was snubbed by the sponsoring organizations of all six scheduled candidate debates between Republican challenger Tim Michels and the Democratic incumbent Russ Feingold. “I think it sucks,” Khan said in September. “These guys talk about democracy, but they’re doing everything in their power to stifle the discussion.”

Khan, who is twice divorced, has three children from his first marriage. He lives in Fond du Lac.

Published October 17, 2004

Sources:

Arif Khan for U.S. Senate campaign Web site

Associated Press “Feingold launches new ad,” September 18, 2004

Fond du Lac Reporter, “Muslim-American treks through path less traveled,” September 27, 2004; story by Aubrey Fleischer

Wisconsin Vote, 2004: House candidate profiles

General election House candidates
Norman Aulabaugh (I)
Tammy Baldwin (D)
Don Bernau (L)
Mark Green (R)
Jef Hall (D)
Tim Johnson (I)
Ron Kind (D)
Dottie LeClair (D)
Mike Miles (WG)
David Obey (D)
Larry Oftedahl (CP)
Tim Peterson (L)
Tom Petri (R)
Carol Ann Rittenhouse (WG)
Dale Schultz (R)
F. James Sensenbrenner (R)

Norman Aulabaugh candidate profile

Norman Aulabaugh, an Independent candidate for Congress, doesn’t hold out much hope for two-party politics in Washington, D.C. He believes partisan conflict is “tearing America in two,” with Republicans and Democrats “more interested in attacking each other than in doing what is right for America.” And as they argue, the many problems that confront America, Aulabaugh says, are growing more serious. “If we do not solve these problems, there will be no future for America,” he maintains.

The $7 trillion national debt is one problem, says the candidate. Social Security and Medicare funding are urgent issues as well. Energy imports, Aulabaugh says, are “draining our wealth and financing corrupt foreign regimes,” and U.S. foreign policy is a “disaster.” “Unilateralism and preemption are unwise policies,” he says.

The candidate believes America can solve these problems, and many more, with “responsible legislation.”

He proposes that Congress reestablish pay-as-you-go rules that would require that any future tax cuts or spending increases be offset by reductions in spending elsewhere. “These rules helped create the surplus at the end of the Clinton administration,” Aulabaugh says. He chastises 1st District incumbent Paul Ryan (R-Janesville) for abandoning “his call to leadership when he fell in line with Republican Party politics and decided we no longer needed to follow these sensible rules.” Aulabaugh also favors a balanced budget amendment.

On Social Security the candidate proposes a “real” Social Security trust fund, pointing out that Washington has spent “every penny” of the current fund. “The trust fund is only an accounting number,” Aulabaugh says, “a reminder that Washington owes this money to the American people.” He charges Ryan with breaking a pledge to “end the raid” on the trust fund by voting for the Bush tax cuts, thereby “guaranteeing Social Security trust fund dollars would continue to be spent on general government operations,” he contends.

Aulabaugh likewise targets Ryan for voting to support the Medicare prescription drug benefit passed by Congress last November. He says the program is unfunded and will add $534 billion to the “ever-increasing” national debt. “We have asked future generations to pay for a benefit we will receive today,” he says. “This is irresponsible.”

The candidate proposes to introduce legislation to allow Medicare to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs. “The program Ryan voted for expressly forbids such negotiations, and is a sell out to the drug companies so they can reap huge profits,” he says. Aulabaugh also supports a universal health care insurance program “partially subsidized” by a national sales tax.

Aulabaugh points out that half of U.S. oil imports come from “foreign countries that are becoming increasingly hostile toward the United States.” He promotes energy independence, and believes the United States must become “the world leader” in fuel cell technology. The candidate’s energy plan includes a tax on the petroleum content of gasoline and diesel fuel, exempting corn ethanol and bio-diesels produced from soybeans. “Such a program would not only reduce our dependency on foreign oil, it would also help America’s farmers,” Aulabaugh says.

A first-time candidate for elective office, Aulabaugh appears quite sincere in his convictions. He vows to return his full congressional salary if after his first term he fails to convince Congress “to stop spending our trust fund dollars for non-Social Security purposes.” Aulabaugh offers to “go anywhere, anytime” to make a 15-minute presentation he calls “Saving America’s Future.”

The candidate is a Navy veteran and a retired Janesville businessman. He lives in Orfordville with his wife Carol.

Published October 16

Sources

Norman Aulabaugh for Congress campaign Web site

Norman Aulabaugh Candidate Statement, Wisconsin Public Television

Tammy Baldwin candidate profile

Democrat Tammy Baldwin is seeking a fourth term as representative in the 2nd Congressional District. The first (and to this day only) declared lesbian member of Congress, Baldwin is also the first woman to represent Wisconsin at the congressional level

Two years ago the congresswoman scored the most decisive victory among her three successful congressional campaigns, attracting 59 percent of the vote in overcoming a challenge from conservative minister Ron Greer, a vocal opponent of “the radical leftist gay agenda” with which he linked Baldwin.

This year, Baldwin faces a more moderate challenge from first-time candidate Dave Magnum, a Portage businessman with close ties to the local Republican establishment. (Greer ran again this year, but Magnum easily won the Republican primary in September.)

Though it remains to be seen whether Magnum can mount an effective challenge against the three-term incumbent, theWisconsin State Journal believes the Republican is “likely to make Baldwin squirm as she tries to justify another ineffective two years in Washington championing a far-left agenda of universal health care and similar pipe dreams.”

Baldwin for her part is not relenting in her effort to secure health insurance for all Americans, having recently unveiled – as she has in every session of Congress since taking office – universal health care legislation. The Health Security for All Americans Act proposes “generous” federal matching funds for states achieving full coverage within four years. The bill also guarantees consumers a “minimum benefit package equal to the benefits offered to members of Congress.”

While Baldwin remains steadfastly committed to universal health coverage, she has shown comparable resolve on the issue of prescription drug coverage.

In her first term Baldwin co-sponsored a bill that proposed to cut prescription drug prices for seniors by almost half and fought for passage of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Campaigning in 2000 on a prescription drug plan similar to one advanced by Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, Baldwin pointedly modified expectations in the early months of the Bush administration. “For those eligible, there will be a very modest federal program, it appears,” Baldwin commented. “But it will be a far cry from the solution that’s demanded at this time.”

When the House finally passed a prescription drug benefit in 2003, Baldwin, who voted “no,” called the bill “so bad, it’s almost mind-numbing.” She portrayed the final version of the Medicare Modernization Act, signed into law last December, as the “beginning of the end” of Medicare, describing the drug benefit as “meager.” “This bill does include unprecedented benefits - unfortunately those benefits go predominantly to the politically-connected pharmaceutical and insurance industries, rather than to America’s seniors,” Baldwin said at the time.

As Baldwin continues to earn recognition nationwide as an advocate of health care reform, the issue of gay marriage has raised her public profile in ways the congresswoman may not have contemplated. As one of only three openly gay members of Congress, and an advocate of gay marriage, Baldwin has taken a leading role in the national debate on the issue.

In February Baldwin appeared on the CBS program “Face the Nation,” squaring off against conservative Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), a supporter of the proposed amendment that would constitutionally prohibit same-sex marriage. Baldwin maintained there was “absolutely no need for a federal constitutional action,” observing: “Our Constitution has been used to expand rights,” not to limit them.

(Following the Massachusetts high court ruling late last year Baldwin said: “In our federal system of government, marriage has always been a state issue. And as a member of Congress, I will continue to fight to keep it that way.”)

In July Baldwin made headlines exchanging arguments with her Wisconsin colleague, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls), in a heated House debate over legislation to deny federal courts jurisdiction in ruling on challenges to state bans on gay marriage. “We face no less than the specter of a sign posted on the courthouse door: ‘You may not seek equal protection here,’” Baldwin argued. “Today, the 'you’ is gay and lesbian citizens. But who will be next?” The bill passed the House with a 41-vote margin.

With a Republican majority in the House, and a Republican in the White House, Baldwin has often found herself on the losing side of debate during the past four years. Her opposition to the Bush tax cuts, the Patriot Act, the Iraq war, and numerous other Republican initiatives didn’t count for much when the votes were tallied. Amendments she has proposed have often come up short in floor votes, or never made it out of committee.

“It reflects a majority party that is not willing to work in a bipartisan manner or listen to the concerns that we raise on behalf of our constituents,” the congresswoman said in March, following several attempts to amend the Bush administration’s budget proposal. But Baldwin appears undaunted, promising, “I will continue to make the views of my constituents known in the budget process.”

Baldwin has not been shy about expressing her own views either, on the budget process or otherwise. During the budget debate in 2003, Baldwin, a member of the House Budget Committee, dubbed the Republican congressional proposal “the most fiscally irresponsible in American history,” proposing a series of amendments that would have restored funding to various programs while reducing the overall size of the tax cut. (Baldwin advocates repealing the tax cuts that benefit “the very wealthiest individuals and corporations.”)

Last year when the Environmental Protection Agency released a status report apparently compromised by administration officials who had removed or replaced language concerning global warming, Baldwin issued a letter to President Bush implicating “White House operatives” in a methodical cover-up. “We have the facts, the research is in, and yet the White House deliberately deleted it from a significant national report on the environment,” Baldwin said. “I am outraged.”

Nowhere else, however, has Baldwin’s critique of the Bush administration been more stinging than on issues relating to the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.

As the administration raised the prospect of a war with Iraq during the summer and autumn of 2002, Baldwin and 18 House colleagues - 17 Democrats and independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont - formed a coalition opposed to a unilateral pre-emptive attack on Iraq. In an interview Baldwin advanced positions that would inform her stance on Iraq throughout the prolonged debate: Iraq posed “no imminent threat”; close collaboration with the United Nations was vital; weapons inspectors should be permitted to return to Iraq and complete their work.

“Absent an imminent threat, we must exhaust our other tools before hauling out the machinery of death and destruction,” Baldwin said. “There are realistic alternatives between doing nothing and declaring war.”

When Congress voted that October to grant President Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq, Baldwin voted no. “Intervention, yes; military intervention at this time, no,” she remarked in a campaign debate the following week.

Throughout the campaign, Baldwin and her Republican opponent, Ron Greer, clashed on the Iraq issue - the Republican endorsing war, Baldwin promoting diplomatic efforts. “Saddam Hussein does pose a significant long-range challenge,” Baldwin acknowledged. “We have the opportunity to work with our allies and the United Nations and inspect and disarm.”

As the president pushed for resources to fund the war, Baldwin viewed her position on the Budget Committee as a means through which to “reassert congressional authority” in the process. She called on the administration to define its long-term objectives in the war, demanding answers to a series of questions she and several House colleagues put to the president days before the war began.

“These are critical questions to which the American public deserves answers,” Baldwin said. “Answers to these questions are essential. We should not write a blank check.” In the end, Baldwin voted - along with the entire Wisconsin congressional delegation - for the $77.9 billion spending package approved by Congress.

The $87 billion supplemental package approved by Congress that fall was a different matter. Seeing no end to the war in sight, and denouncing the administration for lacking a discernible exit strategy, Baldwin concluded: “I don’t think they have a plan. But I think everyone agrees that the current funding request is just the tip of the iceberg. This could be a bottomless hole.” Describing the situation as “almost surreal,” Baldwin expressed “huge misgivings on how this money is being spent,” and voted against the bill.

While Baldwin’s opposition to the war in Iraq has often focused on budgetary matters, her approach to homeland security reflects her concerns as a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Last year the congresswoman rebuked Attorney General John Ashcroft for proposing an expansion of the USA Patriot Act, which Baldwin opposed. In a June hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, Baldwin told Ashcroft that broader authority would threaten constitutional liberties without necessarily making the nation safer. She pressed Ashcroft on alleged Justice Department secrecy, later pledging “to keep on pushing for public disclosure.”

In September 2003 Baldwin joined 28 House colleagues in co-sponsoring legislation to repeal provisions of the Patriot Act, including the abuse of electronic surveillance in antiterrorism investigations and so-called “sneak and peak” property searches.

“Secret surveillance, secret searches, denial of counsel, monitoring of conversations between citizens and their attorneys, or searching library and medical records are not necessary to protect Americans,” Baldwin remarked in a press conference, cataloguing a range of alleged excesses written into the Patriot Act. The bill she co-sponsored remains in committee.

An attorney by trade, Baldwin has spent almost 20 years in elective office. First elected to the Dane County Board of Supervisors in 1986, she served four terms in that position while earning a law degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and later practicing law. During her final term as county supervisor, Baldwin won a seat in the Wisconsin State Assembly. As representative for the 78th Assembly District (comprising central and south Madison), she spent six years in the state legislature before winning her seat in Congress.

For Baldwin the 1984 Democratic National Convention was a formative event. Twenty-two years old at the time, she remembers watching vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro deliver her acceptance speech on television and thinking, “Wow, I can do anything in politics. The barriers are being broken. The sky’s the limit.” Still, Baldwin says her success in politics has surprised her. “I didn’t start out running for the county board saying … 'Someday I’m going to be in Congress,’” she said in a recent interview.

Baldwin lives in Madison with her partner of almost 10 years, Lauren Azar, an attorney with Michael, Best & Friedrich in Madison.

Published October 1

Sources:

Tammy Baldwin for Congress campaign Web site

Tammy Baldwin U.S. Congress Web site

Tammy Baldwin press release, “Baldwin Announces Legislation to Cover the Uninsured,” May 10, 2004

The Advocate, “Baldwin’s new battle: Capitol Hill’s only openly lesbian lawmaker preps for a tough reelection. If only she knew who she was running against,” June 8, 2004; story by Adele Stan

Associated Press, “Baldwin speaks out against anti-gay marriage legislation,” July 23, 2004; story by Frederic J. Frommer

Capital Times, “Baldwin Got Inspiration From Ferraro 20 Years Ago,” July 26, 2004; story by John Nichols

Capital Times, “Baldwin Fails to Sway House on Gay Marriage” (first edition); “Baldwin Fails To Stop House On Gay Marriage” (second edition), July 23, 2004; article by Michael Morain

Capital Times, “Baldwin Renews Push For Health Care For All,” May 10, 2004 ; story by Anita Weier

Capital Times, “Baldwin Proposals Lose But She’s Not Giving Up,” March 19, 2004; story by Anna Christine Gorski

Capital Times, “Stark Contrast: Baldwin, Greer; Students Witness Spirited Debate,” October 16, 2002; article by Anita Weier

Capital Times, “Feingold Says No On Iraq,” October 9, 2002; story by Eli Fanning

Federal News Service transcript, “CBS: 'Face the Nation’,” February 29, 2004

Federal News Service transcript, “Press Conference with Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Representative Barney Frank (D-MA); Topic: Today’s Ruling In Massachusetts On Same-Sex Marriage,” Tuesday, November 18, 2003

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Baldwin takes center stage in same-sex marriage debate; Congresswoman squares off with GOP’s Santorum on 'Face the Nation’,” March 1, 2004; story by Katherine M. Skiba

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Baldwin joins House anti-war coalition,” September 20, 2002; story by Craig Gilbert

Wisconsin State Journal editorial, “First-timer Magnum Shows Potential,” September 12, 2004

Don Bernau candidate profile

Greenfield Libertarian Don Bernau is making his first run for elective office, vying to unseat three-term incumbent Paul Ryan (R-Janesville). He advocates small, simple, accountable government. Personal liberty is proportional to the size of government, Bernau says. “The larger the government is, the less liberties you have. The smaller the government is, the more liberties you have.”

The candidate believes that “abusive over-taxing” by government is not only a significant drain on pocketbooks but personal liberty, since taxpayers relinquish control over how their tax dollars are spent. “The money is almost always misspent, overspent, or spent contrary to our moral beliefs,” Bernau maintains. He adds that by abolishing income taxes - which he supports - Americans will regain “personal control” of their “hard-earned money” and help “keep the poorly run and immoral organizations out of business.”

The war in Iraq, Bernau contends, is “outright unconstitutional.” He says that without members of Congress first exercising their constitutional responsibility “to vote yea or nay,” the president’s unilateral decision to wage war violates Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (the Congress shall have power to declare war). “Government is operating outside the law and the Constitution and is accountable to no one,” Bernau says, portraying the current situation in Washington as “government anarchy.”

He seeks to remove the United States from the United Nations, abolish the Department of Education, and privatize Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.

“Libertarians generally sound very much alike,” Bernau notes, “because their philosophy is based on fundamental common sense principles.”  

The candidate says he wants to educate voters “about what’s really going on,” believing mainstream broadcast and print media are failing to present the truth. He says the Internet is his main source of information. “All I care about is the truth,” Bernau says. “Once you start wanting to know the truth, you can just figure things out; you’re more perceptive.”

Bernau, who describes his campaign as a “one-man show,” says working for change is his top priority. “I wish more people would feel that way,” he says. “It would sure be nice to have the help.”

The current chairman of the Libertarian Party of Milwaukee, Bernau is one of three Wisconsin Libertarian candidates for Congress. He is self-employed, operating a home improvements business, and is a licensed home inspector. He counts gardening, primitive living skills and meditation among his interests. Bernau is single with no children.

Published October 16

Sources:

Don Bernau Candidate Statement, Wisconsin Public Television

Wisconsin Vote interview with Don Bernau

Libertarian Party of Wisconsin campaign Web site

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Greenfield man joins race for Ryan’s seat,” June 26, 2004

Mark Green candidate profile

Rep. Mark Green, a Green Bay Republican, first won a seat in Congress six years ago, replacing one-term incumbent Jay Johnson, a Democrat. This year Appleton Democrat Dottie LeClair will attempt to unseat the incumbent Green, who in three terms has developed a broad base of support in the 8th Congressional District.

Green has also developed a strong network of campaign contributors, amassing impressive sums in recent elections. Two years ago Green reportedly outspent Democrat Andrew Becker by a margin of nearly 100 to 1, attracting almost three-fourths of the vote in a three-candidate race (Wisconsin Green Party nominee Dick Kaiser was the third contestant). This year Green has collected about $1 million.

With a busy congressional session running into the second week of October, Green has had few opportunities to campaign in the district. In a Wisconsin Vote interview recorded on the final full day of the October session, the Republican articulated an “old-fashioned view” towards politics and campaigning. “I believe that you get reelected by competence, by doing your job,’ Green said. "I’m here in Washington today because I’m working on what I think right now is the most important challenge facing this country, making our country safer for the years ahead.”

Green believes he and his Republican colleagues have done much to attract the wide support of voters. A member of the House Judiciary and International Relations Committees, Green has been closely involved in shaping key pieces of legislation and pushing forward central imperatives of Bush administration foreign and national defense policy.

The congressman voted to authorize force in Iraq two years ago and continues to vigorously support the war and reconstruction efforts in that country. Acknowledging the “great challenges” that lie ahead, Green, who visited Iraq last October, believes the American-led coalition is making progress. “As we move towards elections and full sovereignty for the Iraqi government, it sends a message, I think, throughout that region that democracy and freedom are possible, and I believe where democracy and freedom begin to take hold, terrorism, which is built upon despair and tyranny, cannot survive,” he said recently.

As evidence of success, Green points to the schools that have been rebuilt, the textbooks that have been distributed, the children who have been immunized, and the hospitals and clinics “that are up and running.” He also counts the country’s sovereign interim government among the “extraordinarily important” developments in Iraq. “As painful as it is, I believe the mission is the right one, and I believe in the long run, we will look back on these days as a time when we did difficult work and we turned the corner in the war on terrorism,” Green maintains.

As for the contentious run-up to the war, the Republican believes the administration gave diplomacy “plenty of opportunity, as much as it could reasonably,” in trying to resolve the crisis. He believes “17 U.N. resolutions over a dozen years” was adequate and points to the recently released CIA report that details Saddam Hussein’s success in circumventing existing U.N. sanctions. “He was clearly gaming the system,” Green notes. “He obviously had no intention of either complying with sanctions or producing evidence that he had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.”

Even as the report finds that no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons were in Iraq - the supposed presence of which underpinned the administration’s chief justification for the Iraq invasion - Green believes the war has been more than justified.

“We have rid the world of a terrible dictator who was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people, who brought about death and destruction, who tried to export his brand of tyranny, who invaded another country, who flouted U.N. resolutions,” Green contends. He adds: “The world is so much better off for his departure, and as democracy and freedom take hold I think it will be an extraordinarily positive thing.”

The congressman is certain that legislative efforts to defend the homeland have also been productive. Green cites the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, passage of the USA Patriot Act, and “the ramping up of military and intelligence budgets” as pivotal domestic actions that were taken to boost national security. And while many Democrats continue to pummel the administration for alleged diplomatic failures, Green says the administration’s “renewed emphasis diplomatically” has paid heavy dividends. Pakistan, he says, is now a key U.S. ally “working very closely with us” and Libya has relinquished its weapons program.

But Green agrees with the conclusions of the recently issued 9/11 commission report, which notes that while America is safer today than it was three years ago “we’re not safe. There is more to do. That’s why I continue to work on [legislation enacting recommendations of] the 9/11 commission report. And I have several provisions in there that I believe will dramatically enhance our security.”

Indeed, the House passed legislation on October 8th - the 9-11 Recommendations Implementation Act - that included a pair of Green-authored counter-terrorism measures. Introduced by Green a year ago, the provisions aim to assist the government in convicting individuals who provide “material support” to terrorists, and would create tougher penalties for those who purposefully mislead investigators in terrorism cases. The Republican dubbed the measures “essential” in “making this nation safer.”

Green’s legislative imprint extends far beyond the war on terrorism, however.

Earlier this year Green founded the bipartisan Community Solutions Caucus for faith-based initiatives. Then in August, the Republican introduced legislation to establish a permanent office of faith-based and community initiatives in the White House. (The bill was referred to the House Committee on Government Reform.) Green insists that such programs should “never fund the teaching of faith or proselytizing,” but believes government support of faith-based initiatives can play a “very important role” in poverty relief.

The Republican is also a leading advocate for curbing “illegal, anti-free market trade practices” in the People’s Republic of China. Believing that such abuses are costing American jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector, Green has authored legislation that passed the House urging the Chinese to enforce intellectual property regulations, as well as cosponsoring a bill to “offset the advantage the Chinese are providing for themselves through currency manipulation.”

With the price of gasoline reaching near-record levels, Green has worked to lower costs. He believes one significant cause of gasoline price instability is “the fragmentation of the oil market” into numerous “boutique” or reformulated fuels. In this Congress and the last, Green has co-sponsored legislation to amend the Clean Air Act in regulating the use of reformulated gasoline. The current bill, the Boutique Fuels Reduction Act of 2004, was introduced in late September and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Despite the list of the congressman’s legislative accomplishments, he has nevertheless been dismissed by one Wisconsin newspaper, the Capital Times in Madison, as a Republican rubber stamp. Green rejects the criticism as a “partisan cheap shot,” observing: “My job is to represent northeastern Wisconsin. I look at every issue. I look at every piece of legislation with that in mind. Many times I agree with this administration. Why? Because many times they’re correct.” Green notes that he has disagreed with the White House on some issues, including aspects of energy and trade policy.

In his six years in Congress, Green has climbed the ranks of the GOP hierarchy, gaining a position as assistant House majority whip while serving on the Republican Policy Committee. Before election to Congress, Green was a three-term legislator in the Wisconsin Assembly, where he demonstrated similar drive, assuming chairmanship of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary as well as the Majority Caucus.

A lifelong resident of the 8th Congressional District, Green earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire and a law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School in Madison. He and his wife Sue have three children. They live in Green Bay.

Published October 9

Sources:

Mark Green U.S. Congress Web site

Federal News Service Transcript, “Prepared Statement of Mark Green Before the House Financial Services Committee Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology,” October 1, 2003

Wisconsinvote.org interview with Mark Green, October 8, 2004, Washington, D.C.

Jef Hall candidate profile

Oshkosh Democrat Jef Hall has brought a determined do-it-yourself ethic to his bid for Congress. In managing his own campaign with no paid staff (just an intern), programming the campaign Web site, designing the campaign logo, and writing every word of his campaign platform, Hall has maintained a busy schedule in the six-months since he entered the 6th Congressional District contest. And that’s to say nothing of the many thousands of miles he’s logged on the campaign trail, driving from venue to venue in a used Saturn he purchased last February.

“I’ve said from the very beginning that if there’s five people hanging out together in the 6th District, I want to be there to talk to them,” Hall told Wisconsin Vote.

The 31-year-old candidate has campaigned door to door, talked to trade unionists and students, held meet-the-candidate events, and participated in a series of candidate debates. His opponents are Wisconsin Green Carol Ann Rittenhouse and incumbent Rep. Tom Petri (R-Fond du Lac).

From the beginning Hall took matters into his own hands. Petri ran unopposed two years ago, and has rarely encountered more than token opposition. So Hall decided 2004 would be different. “I wanted to make sure we gave people a choice,” he commented recently.

A lifelong Democrat, Hall and other party activists searched the district for promising would-be candidates, until Hall himself emerged as the obvious choice. “If you’re not willing to step up and do it, how can you expect anyone else to?” he says. “If you have the ideas, if you have the ability to articulate them, and if you have the passion, you can do the job.”

Hall is convinced that after 25 years in office, the Republican incumbent can no longer do the job. “Petri does not help the district,” says Hall. “We need to hold him accountable to his record, which I don’t think is helping us at all.”

For starters, Hall believes Petri’s votes in Congress are motivated by personal and political calculations that run counter to the interests of his constituents. A notable example, Hall says, is the Medicare prescription drug benefit passed into law last year. Petri voted for the bill, calling the final version signed by President Bush “the most significant domestic legislative accomplishment of 2003.”

Hall points to Petri’s Walgreen Co. stock holdings, which two years ago were valued between $5 million and $25 million. In endeavoring to establish a “conflict of self-interest” on the incumbent’s part, Hall quotes the Walgreen Co. 2003 Annual Report as follows: “IMS, the pharmaceutical research firm, expects a Medicare prescription benefit to add 75 to 100 million incremental prescriptions per year to the market.”

It’s dishonest,“ Hall says of Petri’s vote. "It was great for him. Who else was it good for?”

For Hall the campaign is all about health care. “That’s what everyone’s talking about,” he says. The Democrat names health care as the most important domestic issue of the next decade and believes the provision of universal health care is a “moral and fiscal necessity.”

His plan is premised on a straightforward notion: “don’t restrict the market.” Hall wants to empower Medicare to negotiate for a range of health services and reduce prices through bulk purchasing.

But the candidate is not content to leave it there. He proposes that Medicare (or specifically, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency that administers the program) be given the authority to negotiate not just for seniors but for “everyone.” “And not just for drugs,” Hall adds. “Let’s have them negotiate for all health services, procedures, doctor visits, X-rays - everything. And then we will be getting the best prices ever because we’re going to be leveraging the current framework we have but against a purchasing group of millions.”

Hall believes his plan will save money “across the board.” The savings, he says, will allow government to collect (from an unspecified population of taxpayers) a “slight up-charge,” to ensure that health coverage is available for those who cannot afford it. Hall contends that such an expansion in coverage would generate further savings when hospital bills no longer reflect costs incurred by medical care administered to those who cannot afford it. “Because let’s face it,” he says. “We’re all paying for the people who can’t afford it right now.”

Hall says his plan works within the current framework of existing health services. “The only thing the government is going to do is act as the negotiator,” says the candidate. “So we’re still using private industry. It’s not a socialist model. It’s harnessing the power of the free market to really work for the betterment of everyone.”

On Iraq, the candidate proposes an exit strategy similar to plans being pushed by Democrats and Republicans alike: “Bring people in and help, and then along with that help Iraq kind of take care of itself.” He adds that placing a timeline on a U.S. withdrawal would be impractical. “I go back to Boy Scouts. Something I learned as a Boy Scout was always leave a campsite better than you found it. I know it’s a silly thing to say, but we did some bad things [in Iraq], and we need to make sure that we fix it before we just bug out.”

With respect to domestic security, Hall promotes adding measures to the USA Patriot Act that ensure judicial oversight in sensitive law enforcement matters like “sneak and peak” property searches. “So as long as there is someone overseeing our rights and ensuring we have our rights,” he says, “I’m okay with authorizing some of the things in the Patriot Act.”

On trade, the candidate believes U.S. companies cannot continue to send jobs overseas “and expect to still have consumers at home.” He advocates fair trade agreements that take into account the best interests of people in the 6th Congressional District, not the investors. “If we don’t have a market to sell to, it doesn’t matter what investment is because no money is going to grow,” he says.

Hall promotes full funding for the No Child Left Behind education program, and believes the emphasis on measuring academic achievement needs to change. “We need to measure the student’s ability to learn, not the student’s ability to take a test,” he says.

The Democrat opposes the proposed federal marriage amendment that would prohibit gay marriage. He believes same-sex couples should be granted the full legal privileges of state marriage - a mere financial transaction, he says - and that religious institutions should decide whether same-sex marriage in the “spiritual or religious” sense is appropriate. “Just saying yes, I’m for gay marriage is a loser issue,” Hall concedes. “But if people think about it, [same-sex couples seeking to be married] are fighting to become more responsible. Why would we deny them that?”

Hall says he is neither pro-choice nor pro-life. “Abortion’s a bad idea,” he says. But as a man, he believes he has no right to “say what’s between a woman, her doctor and her beliefs.” The candidate adds that outlawing abortion would have little practical effect and argues the best way to end abortion is to end unplanned pregnancy.

The candidate rejects political labels like “liberal” and “moderate.” “I just consider my politics sensible,” he says. “Are they to the left? Yes. But I wouldn’t say I’m radical.”

Hall has lived in the district since the age of three, growing up on a small farm in Princeton, Wis. He has attended the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, focusing on journalism, political science and computer science but not yet earning a degree. “I go back every semester or two,” he says. With past experience in sales, nursing home care and agriculture pest control, Hall is currently involved in database marketing with J.J. Keller & Associates in Neenah. He is single with no children.

Published October 25, 2004

Sources:

Jef Hall for Congress campaign Web site

Wisconsin Vote interview with Jeff Hall, October 19, 2004

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Race for 6th District seat sees two challengers to Petri: Democrat, Green candidates take on long-standing congressman,” October 5, 2004; story by Dan Egan

Tim Johnson candidate profile

Independent Tim Johnson, one of five candidates vying for the open 4th Congressional District seat, says the two-party political system is “not accommodating at all” to third party and independent challenges. Excluded from nearly all candidate forums and debates the Republican and Democrat contenders have participated in, Johnson has struggled to have his voice heard during the campaign.

The candidate has crafted a detailed issues platform, speaking to the pressing matters of national security and health care reform but not forgetting local policy concerns like mass transit and raw sewage in Lake Michigan. “I’m not just a flake,” says Johnson, a self-described moderate who previously served on the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors. “I’m a legitimate candidate, just not in a major party.”

Johnson believes the two-party system is not just falling short during the campaign season. He says the political climate in America has been “poisoned by bickering partisanship,” creating a “politics of division” that obstructs productive compromise and cooperation. “Tragically, in our country today, problems go unsolved because the creative energies that have historically defined America are suppressed by the politics of division,” Johnson writes on his campaign Web site.

In illustrating the need for a “politics of cooperation,” the candidate points to embryonic stem cell research. Johnson raises concern that as the two parties “play political football” with the issue - Republicans generally oppose funding new stem cell lines while Democrats generally support it - U.S. researchers may fall behind as their European counterparts “fill the gap.”

The candidate proposes a five-year program, doubling the number of embryonic cell lines in use. He says the program can be reevaluated in 2010 “to determine if more money should be directed that way.” At the same time, he promotes substantially increasing the funding for “far less controversial” adult cell research. “In that way,” Johnson says, “my compromise position goes beyond the two-party gridlock,” compelling both sides to “give up something” while enabling both forms of research to continue.

Johnson seeks similar compromise on health care. Recognizing both the limitations and the strengths of health care proposals pushed by the two major parties, the candidate promotes a middle-ground approach that joins the market forces Republicans prefer and the government forces Democrats prefer. This approach, he believes, can produce an “innovative” plan “to cover every citizen.” The candidate calls the delivery of universal health care a moral issue. “It is absolutely unacceptable that a nation as wealthy and technologically advanced as America cannot provide quality health care to every single one of its citizens,” he says.

Johnson believes that party politics is also undermining the effort in Iraq. Republicans, he says, “tend to blindly follow George Bush’s every decision,” while Democrats “criticize the administration without ever acknowledging legitimate advances in the war.”

Johnson says the latter description “absolutely” applies to Democrat Gwen Moore, the presumed favorite in the 4th Congressional District contest. (Moore, a state senator, opposed the Bush administration decision to go to war and has been a sharp critic of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.) By contrast, Johnson calls his Republican opponent Jerry Boyle a “thoughtful guy,” who “is trying to respond to what he considers are excessively pessimistic portrayals of our involvement.” The Republican is an Iraq war veteran who supports the war.

Like Boyle, Johnson has seen action in Iraq, serving as a combat engineer platoon leader with the Army 1st Cavalry Division in the 1990-'91 Persian Gulf War. He says he knows “firsthand that Saddam Hussein’s regime was brutal.” But while Johnson agrees that the U.S. is “currently doing the right thing” in Iraq, he believes it is being done for the wrong reasons.

“We clearly overstated the case for the weapons of mass destruction and the link between Hussein and al-Qaeda,” Johnson notes on his campaign Web site. In the process, he says, the U.S. “alienated” itself from important allies. “We simply cannot expect to productively influence world affairs on our own; we need our allies,” the candidate argues.

But Johnson believes the focus must be on developing a “meaningful” exit strategy, not pointing fingers of blame. He proposes “sufficient troops” remain in Iraq to secure the January elections, while others remain to train Iraqi forces. By Easter 2005, he says, the U.S. should complete a withdrawal of “her main forces,” with the United Nations playing “a key role in preserving the peace after we leave.”

On the diplomatic front, the candidate believes the U.S. must show “humility” in its efforts to mend relations with allies, and “in general demonstrate that we recognize that we cannot 'go it alone.’”

One important gesture of good will, he says, would be re-opening the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Johnson says the move would “send a strong signal to our allies that we are serious about working with them.” He believes the administration should work to negotiate a revision of the protocol that best satisfies U.S. interests. (The U.S. is a signatory to the protocol but President Bush does not intend to submit the treaty for Senate ratification. Bush nevertheless says that his administration is “committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change.”)

Johnson is pro-life except in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother, and is a strong advocate for adoption. He opposes same-sex marriage but does not support the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment, believing the issue should be left to the states to decide.

He says that his candidacy offers voters in the 4th Congressional District a real choice for Congress and an opportunity to “get beyond the politics of division and choose the politics of cooperation.”

Johnson is a graduate of West Point and earned a Ph.D. in Religious Studies from Marquette University. A resident of the west side of Milwaukee, Johnson currently teaches theology at Marquette and is adjunct professor of Morality at Lakeland College in West Allis. He is married with three children.

Published October 16

Sources:

Tim Johnson for Congress campaign Web site

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel “Boyle takes on two Moores in congressional election; He issues debate challenge to film director, state senator,” October 6, 2004; story by Larry Sandler

Wisconsin Vote e-mail interview with Tim Johnson, October 16, 2004

Ron Kind candidate profile

Rep. Ron Kind, a Democrat from La Crosse, has served Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District since 1996. On November 2nd, he will be seeking a fifth term.

In three past bids for reelection, Kind enjoyed comfortable margins of victory, turning back challenges from weak contenders. This year the congressman is expected to face his most formidable challenge to date - state Sen. Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center), a 22-year veteran of state legislative politics.

Unopposed in the September primary, Schultz has had the luxury of focusing campaign resources entirely on the November election, offering a relentless eight-month critique of Kind’s legislative record. Kind has found significantly less time for active campaigning, keeping a busy schedule in Washington and traveling in mid-September to Iraq.

That trip, a bipartisan congressional fact-finding mission, was the basis of a recent campaign controversy. On the eve of Kind’s departure, the Schultz campaign accused the incumbent of using the trip for political cover.

“I don’t think his trip is substantive at all,” Schultz told the La Crosse Tribune. “It’s an attempt by Ron Kind to get out of La Crosse and Eau Claire so he doesn’t have to have a discussion about the loss of jobs due to his reckless promotion of free trade policies.” (As detailed below, jobs and trade are central issues of the campaign.)

Kind shot back, rejecting the criticism as political subterfuge. “He’s clearly willing to say or do anything to get elected,” Kind remarked.

But the controversy didn’t end there. The following day the Kind campaign issued an open letter to Sen. Schultz signed by a group of area veterans. “We respectfully ask for an immediate apology to the troops and their families whose hard work and sacrifice you trivialized with your cynical and illogical comments,” the letter said.

Schultz’s campaign replied with its own letter, and its own veterans, among them Schultz’s Senate colleague Dave Zien (R-Eau Claire), a Vietnam veteran. The letter put a number of questions to the veterans supporting Kind, intended to raise doubts about the incumbent’s support for the war, the reconstruction effort and the troops themselves. “If Mr. Kind believes we are mistaken in our criticism of him, he is welcome to explain his seemingly unclear position on the war and wavering support for our troops in a spirited debate with Dale Schultz upon his return to Wisconsin,” the letter said.

A member of the House Budget Committee, Kind viewed the Iraq visit as an opportunity to survey reconstruction efforts as well as assess the needs of American military personnel on the ground. “The administration needs to be accountable to Congress and the American people on how taxpayer dollars have been spent and what they will continue to fund,” Kind said. “In the likely event of a future supplemental funding request for Iraq, I believe it is necessary for Congress to observe firsthand the challenges that we face in completing the mission.”

Kind was not encouraged by what he saw. Describing the situation in Iraq as worse than it had been a year before - Kind visited the country last October - the congressman expressed grave concerns about the increased level of violence and “sophistication” of the insurgents, and spoke about the diminishing patience of the Iraqi people. “I always felt we had a narrow window of opportunity to get in here and make good progress before the patience wears thin, and I think it’s dangerously close to that right now,” Kind told the La Crosse Tribune.

A month earlier Kind questioned whether the United States was doing enough to win the “hearts and minds” of ordinary Iraqis. He cautioned that until that happened, the coalition would be waging a “losing, catch-up battle” in Iraq. Speaking with the editors of the Capital Times, Kind supported Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s recent assertion that a more “sensitive” war on terrorism was needed. “It isn’t just a conventional military response that we need,” Kind said.

He added: “I think the administration doesn’t get it. I think they have no plan to reverse the PR crisis that we’re in in that part of the world, and it’s going to take a change of administration to change our image.” Kind has endorsed Sen. Kerry in his bid for the presidency.

Like Kerry, Kind’s position on the war has evolved over two years from a “yes” vote authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq - as “leverage over Saddam Hussein” - to his current dissatisfaction with administration policy.

As early as last October Kind believed the president’s argument that Iraq posed an imminent threat was “oversold”; a year later he speaks more cynically of the administration’s efforts. The congressman feels the president was neither interested in working with the U.N. Security Council nor the inspections process. What’s more, he now believes the war has given Osama bin Laden a distinct advantage in the “marketing game” to “recruit future al Qaeda leaders.”

“History will bear out whether the world community has been made safer, but right now, given the increased recruitment we’ve seen with al Qaeda, I’m afraid that we’ve played into bin Laden’s hand,” Kind told the Capital Times in August.

The only Democratic House representative from Wisconsin to vote to authorize war, Kind consistently advocated for “the use of multilateral force as a last resort,” delivering a pair of letters to the president urging the administration to exhaust “all diplomatic measures” before going to war. In the second of those letters, issued in January 2003, 120 House Democrats joined Kind in stressing the importance of providing United Nations weapons inspectors “the time and resources they need to effectively do their job.”

The Wisconsin State Journal lauded Kind’s efforts as an “important development,” which “ought to serve as a signal that the mood has shifted sharply against the rush-to-war position, and the president should adjust his stance accordingly.”

As the weeks passed and President Bush brought the nation closer to war, indicating a growing impatience with diplomatic channels, Kind continued to speak out against war. His language increasingly confrontational, the congressman charged the president with “turning our closest friends and allies against us” and “creating a disconnect” between the United States and the rest of the world. “This cowboy rhetoric out of Texas is scaring the bejabbers out of Europe,” Kind said in February 2003.

With the beginning of armed hostilities in late March, Kind took a prominent role in urging U.N. involvement in the post-war reconstruction process. Joining a bipartisan coalition of 42 representatives, he argued that a U.N. role would help “bridge rifts” with key European allies who opposed the war but remained valuable partners in combating international terrorism.

“The last thing we want coming out of this is that we’re perceived as some malevolent occupying force in the Middle East,” Kind remarked. “The sooner we can get the international community and the U.N. involved, the better our security will be in the future.”

While Kind also looked upon U.N. involvement as a way to control costs of the war, and expressed concerns with the mounting expense of reconstruction, he did vote for the $87 billion supplemental fund passed by Congress last October. Having returned from a fact-finding mission to Iraq, the congressman determined that rebuilding Iraq was “really in essence building a country from scratch.” Once again the only House Democrat from Wisconsin to vote yes, Kind spoke of an “obligation to carry out our mission to rebuild postwar Iraq.”

Kind’s willingness to vote independent of party colleagues reflects his moderate political views. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has called Kind one of the “least doctrinaire members of the Wisconsin delegation,” and the congressman prides himself on his reputation as a fiscal conservative.

Indeed, Kind is co-chair of the New Democrat Coalition, a House caucus composed of 74 “centrist, pro-growth” Democrats promoting moderate, “bipartisan solutions to our nation’s problems.”

With their support of public school choice, limited regulation of the “new economy,” and opening overseas markets for trade, the New Democrats have found common ground with many Republicans. But the coalition’s role in helping push through Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China has invited the antagonism of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including Kind’s Republican challenger Dale Schultz.

Promoting himself as an advocate of “fair trade,” Schultz has made free trade, and Kind’s record of support for it, a central issue of the campaign. The Republican contends that Kind’s votes for free trade with “70-plus” countries, including China, has turned “up the 'giant sucking sound’ of jobs going abroad.” Schultz recently said he would have voted against normalizing trade relations with China.

Kind for his part acknowledges the complexity of U.S.-China trade relations, taking note of policies the Chinese have adopted with the apparent aim of undervaluing their currency. He assured constituents at a listening session last year that the devalued yuan “can’t stand.”

While Schultz portrays the Democrat as a negligent free trader, personally “guilty of exporting our manufacturing jobs overseas,” it is Kind who has offered the more detailed platform of fair trade positions. The congressman also points out that when final legislation “proved insufficient to ensure fair trade,” he voted against granting so-called fast track authority to Presidents Clinton and Bush for negotiating trade agreements.

Kind’s job platform includes job training and investment in emerging technologies like nanotechnology. He supports proposed legislation that would encourage the federal government to buy American and give “added preference to U.S. companies that compete for government contracts”; change the tax code to “help retain domestic manufacturing jobs”; and deny tax benefits to “former American companies that reincorporate offshore to avoid paying taxes.”

Campaigning in 2002 Kind called health care “our biggest challenge and a mess.” It’s an issue he links closely with sustainable job growth. Last year the congressman introduced the Small Employer Health Benefits Program Act, a bill that would create federal subsidies underwriting health care insurance for businesses with less than 100 employees. Kind cosponsored legislation to allow the re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada, and coauthored a bill to give prescription drug coverage to all seniors, with no gap in coverage. The bills remain in committee.

Kind voted against the Medicare drug benefit bill signed into law last December, rejecting the bill’s heavy price tag and exclusion of “obvious cost control measures” like government bargaining power to lower costs. “Additionally, it oversteps the boundaries of what is needed to accomplish a prescription drug plan by spending billions to bribe private insurance companies to compete with Medicare,” Kind said.

A native of La Crosse, Kind was a high school football quarterback and a gifted student, earning an academic scholarship from Harvard. As an undergrad, he spent summers working in the Washington, D.C. office of U.S. Sen. William Proxmire, a Democrat. Kind would subsequently earn a master’s degree from the London School of Economics and a law degree from the University of Minnesota.

After practicing law for two years in Milwaukee, Kind returned to La Crosse where he served as county prosecutor. In 1996 he won a five-way primary to earn the nomination as the Democratic candidate in the race to replace outgoing incumbent Steve Gunderson, a Republican. His four-point victory over GOP challenger Jim Harsdorf was the closest contest he’s faced in eight years in Congress.

Since taking office Kind has regularly been mentioned as a potential gubernatorial contender. He passed at the chance to run two years ago, concluding in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, “It is more appropriate for me to focus all my energies to the great challenges that lie before our country.”

Kind lives in La Crosse with his wife Tawni and their two young sons, Johnny and Matthew.

Published October 1

Sources:

Ron Kind for Congress campaign Web site

Ron Kind U.S. Congress Web site

Ron Kind press release, “Kind is Joined by Over 120 House Colleagues in Letter to President Bush: Allow the U.N. Weapons Inspection Process to Go Forward,” January 24, 2003

Ron Kind for Congress campaign, “Open Letter to State Senator Schultz,” September 17, 2004

Dale Schultz for Congress campaign Web site

Dale Schultz for Congress campaign response to veterans, September 18, 2004

Capital Times, “Kind: Kerry’s Right; Says His Anti-Terror Approach Beats Bush’s,” August 14, 2004; article David Callender

La Crosse Tribune, “Kind making trip to Iraq,” September 16, 2004; story by Reid Magney

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial, “Our choices for Congress,” October 28, 2002

New Democrat Coalition Web site

Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, Iowa), “Kind cites failures of U.S. intelligence; He says reform is needed to help officials make better decisions about going to war,” August 8, 2003; story by Susan Daker

Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, Iowa), “Competition mounts in congressional race; Kind questions state senator’s funding source in bid to represent Wisconsin,” February 29, 2004; story by Mary Rae Bragg

Wisconsin State Journal, “Feingold Is Right About Spending Caps; Spending Caps Are Necessary To Keep Washington From Cooking Its Books,” August 25, 2002

Wisconsin State Journal, “Situation Is Worse, Kind Says From Iraq; He Says The Violence Has Escalated And That The Iraqi People Are Losing Patience,”

Dottie LeClair candidate profile

Appleton Democrat Dottie LeClair, a candidate for Congress in the 8th Congressional District, has long been active in the Democratic Party. She has held prominent behind-the-scenes positions at the state and county level, including a 12-year run as Outagamie County party chair. This year she was compelled to seek elective office; on November 2nd she’ll attempt to unseat three-term incumbent Mark Green, a Green Bay Republican.

“I am running because I am the grandmother of a woman about to be deployed to Iraq without proper equipment and training,” LeClair told Wisconsin Vote. “I am running because I know what it is like to come from a middle class family and be jobless. I am running because this district needs someone who will represent the people, rather than the corporate interests in Congress.”

LeClair has garnered the support of several hundred volunteers across the district’s 12 counties, campaigned door to door, and delivered speeches at veterans’ picnics, women’s clubs, union meetings, “and any gathering that seems appropriate,” she says. In confronting Green’s substantial fundraising advantage - by mid-September the incumbent had raised nearly $1 million, the challenger less than $8,000 - LeClair’s campaign has urged supporters to organize house parties and similar fundraising events to finance radio ads and lawn signs.

“The most difficult thing for any challenger to do is to raise name recognition,” says the candidate. “Radio gives us an opportunity to reach a lot of people at a reasonable cost, and signs raise name recognition, so they are both valuable.”

LeClair frequently links her opponent to President Bush, whose administration she is sharply critical of. The Democrat calls the tax cuts approved by Congress in each of the three previous years the “Bush-Green tax cuts,” and blames the “Bush-Green recession” for the loss of 70,000 manufacturing jobs in Wisconsin. “Mark Green has stood by while northeast Wisconsin has fallen into a job crisis, and has only parroted Bush’s meaningless phrases about economic recovery while families are forced into poverty,” says the candidate.

Indeed, LeClair has adopted the campaign slogan “a voice not an echo,” the implication being that her opponent is a Republican rubber stamp. “Mark Green is part of the Republican congressional leadership, and as such, has to toe the line even when his fellow Republicans vote against him. His votes reflect the interests of George Bush, not the constituents of the 8th Congressional District,” she says.

LeClair is particularly critical of Green - and the president - on foreign policy issues. She rejects the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, believing such a policy “alienates our country from our allies.” Its application in Iraq, LeClair believes, was particularly damaging. Acknowledging that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was an “evil tyrant,” LeClair calls the Iraq war a diversion that has made the world “far more dangerous.”

She says: “North Korea and Iran are now heavily involved in nuclear programs. And Iraq, far from being under our control, is now the haven for terrorists that it was not under Saddam. Our military is stretched to the limit, and does not have all the equipment it needs. Our invasion of Iraq has given terrorists new propaganda and reason for recruitment and a new base of operations, and taken us away from the hunt for [Osama] bin Laden and those who were really responsible for 9/11.”

The candidate appears equally pessimistic about Iraq’s short-term future. She dismisses as “naïve” Green’s view that the upcoming elections in Iraq will send a message “throughout that region that democracy and freedom are possible.” LeClair says that Iraq remains deeply divided along ethnic and religious lines, cautioning that democracy cannot be imposed on “nations that are not ready for it.”

“The fact that Mark Green and George Bush have no real understanding of the religious and ethnic tensions in Iraq is scary, because they have an idealized picture of Iraq’s future based on their hopes and dreams, not reality,” says LeClair.

The Democrat believes elections will be “suspect” unless coalition forces can regain control of substantial parts of the country. She calls for the United Nations and unnamed Arab states to assist forces already on the ground in shoring up the security situation in Iraq. “The truth is that our presence is all that stands between Iraq and a bloody civil war to determine which faction will run the country,” says the candidate.

LeClair backs what she calls a summit of the Muslim world, and deems it “vitally important” that the United States welcome its allies “back to the table.” “Only fellow Muslims will have the credibility to serve as peacekeepers in Iraq, and our allies are needed to help train Iraqi security forces so that they can patrol their own country,” she says. She believes that reconstruction funds to Iraq should take the form of loans, not grants, “repayable through income from oil.”

An issue on which LeClair has been especially critical of the incumbent involves TRICARE, the health care program for active duty and retired U.S. service personnel and their families. Last year, she notes, Green was the only member of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation to vote against expanding the program to those serving in the National Guard and Reserves.

“As the grandmother of a National Guard soldier, I say that this is unacceptable,” LeClair writes on her campaign Web site. “Mark Green claims to support our troops but wants to deny health care to the 167,000 National Guard and Reserve troops serving so bravely in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all over the world.” 

LeClair says she supports the troops “and any funding necessary to provide them with needed equipment, supplies and aid.”

Along with the Iraq war, the Democrat considers jobs the most important issue in this election, and indeed over the next four years. She reviles President Bush as the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs, and contends that average household income is not keeping pace with the cost of living. LeClair proposes to eliminate tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs overseas, while at the same time rewarding “those that create jobs here at home.” Her jobs plan also involves investment in new technologies, particularly in the energy sector.

Another way to stimulate job creation, the candidate says, is by helping small business pay for employee health care. But regardless of employment status, LeClair believes all Americans should have access to health care, including children. She criticizes Green for voting last year to block the re-importation of prescription drugs from Canada, which she supports, and believes the federal government should be empowered to negotiate prices with health care providers “so that the same health care that is available to members of Congress can also be provided to citizens that pay for it.”

LeClair grew up on a farm in Stevens Point, and has lived in Appleton for the past 40 years. She currently works for an Appleton area insurance company. In addition to her work with Democratic Party, the candidate has been active with Disabled American Veterans at the state and auxiliary level. Her husband is a disabled Korean War Veteran. LeClair has two daughters, five grandchildren, and a great grandson. She is 55 years old.

Published October 18

Sources:

Dottie LeClair for Congress campaign Web site

Wisconsin Vote interview with Dottie LeClair, October 17, 2004

Wisconsin Vote interview with Mark Green, October 8, 2004

Mike Miles candidate profile

Mike Miles, a Green Party candidate for Congress in the 7th Congressional District, believes incumbent Dave Obey (D-Wausau) will occupy his seat in the House of Representatives until he retires. Miles assures “die-hard Democrats” they have nothing to fear from his candidacy - Obey has abundant campaign funds and the advantage of incumbency; Miles, by contrast, is “a life long peace activist with an arrest record as long as your arm.” (More on the arrest record later.)

So why run?

The Miles campaign Web site says the candidate is not running against Obey but for the issues that “matter most” to 7th District constituents. “Since that was written, I have come to the conclusion that I am running against Dave and the evils of incumbency,” Miles told Wisconsin Vote. “I can do that by addressing issues that incumbents can’t because they want to stay in power. I may not get elected, but I can address the right issues.”

One of those issues is the war in Iraq. Miles, who says he is running to put an “end to war once and for all,” believes the fighting in Iraq must end. “The U.S. must get out of Iraq at the earliest possible moment and turn security over to whomever the Iraqis decide can handle it who is not the U.S,” the candidate contends.

Miles disparages the Bush administration’s war on terrorism as “The Forever War,” believing that it is “decreasing our security daily.” He maintains that Washington’s efforts to prevent terrorism are meaningless without fundamentally revising its foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly with respect to Israel.

“The alternative to terrorism is to level the playing field between how the U.S. treats Arabs [and] Muslims and how the U.S. treats Israel,” Miles says. “The Forever War will not end until Israel gets out of the West Bank and Gaza and surrenders its nuclear weapons. If the U.S. wants to address terror, they must look at poverty and misery in Arab states and how U.S. support for the oil dictatorships fuels economic disparity in these countries.”

Iraq and Israel are the focus of much of the candidate’s activist efforts. Last December Miles traveled to Israel and Palestine with a fact-finding delegation led by the Middle East Children’s Alliance, a non-governmental organization working for peace and justice in Palestine, Israel, Lebanon and Iraq. He likewise visited Iraq three times since 1997, participating in humanitarian missions with Voices in the Wilderness, an organization that delivered humanitarian supplies to Iraq during - and in violation of - the sanctions regime of the past decade.

“I was asked to go so I went,” the candidate recalls. “I went with humanitarian aid and an open mind. I came back finding the question is not 'why do they hate us,’ but instead, 'how can they continue to put up with us after all we have done to them?’” He adds: “We were welcomed into the homes of families whose children had been killed in bombings by U.S. fighter pilots, and they felt no ill will against us as Americans.”

Rep. Obey and Miles do not appear to have many differences on the war. Obey voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing force in Iraq. Last year the Democrat voted against the $87 billion Iraq war and reconstruction spending bill. He has repeatedly raised concerns about U.S. foreign policy, believing the administration’s “arrogant” diplomatic posture has left America “holding the bag financially, militarily and politically for the reconstruction of Iraq.”

But Miles believes Obey, an “unashamed liberal,” is simply not doing enough. “We are going to push Dave Obey as hard as we can in the upcoming campaign,” Miles pledged last July. “Democrats as a whole are assuming that they have progressives in the bag because they have no where else to go. Well, now they do.”

Miles insists he is “running for, really for,” the environment. While his campaign Web site is short on specifics - he does urge immediate energy independence - the candidate nonetheless portrays Obey’s environmental record as unremarkable. “He talks the talk,” Miles says, “but no one I know who works on the ground in any number of issues he professes to be good at even know who he is. I hear he is good on the environment, but I honestly don’t know what he has done outside of casting votes that support what others are doing.”

(Obey’s League of Conservation Voters environmental scorecard rating is currently 95 percent. Last year he called the Bush White House “home to the most anti-environmental administration in modern history,” citing as two reasons, the president’s efforts to weaken enforcement of the Clean Air Act and his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. His campaign Web site makes no mention of the environment but he touts many legislative successes, including a bill to “double funding for land acquisition and cleaning up the maintenance backlog at national parks and forests.”)

Miles even dismisses Obey’s many notable successes bringing home federal dollars to Wisconsin. As the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, the congressman over one 10-day period last year secured nearly $2 million in funds for the state, for projects ranging from low-pesticide potato production to arts and literacy education programs. “If you look at his website, he hasn’t updated his press releases since April of 2003,” Miles counters. “What has he done in the last 18 months?”

He continues: “The money [Obey] brings back is mere crumbs compared to what people lose because of spending on military adventurism,” Miles argues. “The average tax burden of Wisconsinites in 2003 was just over $6,000, and almost half of that went to war and the debt on war. If we end war, people will have more money. And they won’t need Dave to be their high-rent horse trader. I may not know where the brandy and cigars are, but I know where the people are.”

One of 10 Green Party candidates who will appear on state ballots in November, Miles is making his first run for public office. He readily acknowledges the 35-year incumbent’s fundraising advantage in the race, noting his own campaign has “zippo, nada.” But what the campaign lacks in funds Miles suggests he can compensate for with “a lot of imagination and creativity and enthusiasm and hope.” He requests that monetary donations be accompanied by “matching funds” to the donor’s “favorite humanitarian cause.” “We want everyone to feel that as much good as possible will come out of our campaign, win or lose,” the candidate says.

Miles, 51, belongs to the Catholic Worker Movement. Founded in 1933, the peace and social justice movement estimates there to be more than 185 Catholic communities currently in operation. One of those is Anathoth Community Farm, a 57-acre “eco-village” founded by Miles and his partner Barb Kass. He describes Anathoth as a center for the study of nonviolence, community, and sustainable living. “It is where we say 'yes’ by being something irresistible, without demanding something impossible,” Miles says. The farm is located in Luck, Wis.

During his years at Anathoth, Miles has been involved in nonviolent protest over the U.S. Navy’s submarine communication transmitter in the Chequamegon National Forest near Clam Lake. Known as Project ELF, for extremely low frequency radio, the facility was constructed in 1968, functioning as a test site until 1985, when it attained full operating capability. The $400 million Project ELF was a Cold War measure, designed for one-way communication between the command post and Navy Trident submarines packing nuclear explosives. The Navy facility permanently closed operations earlier this month.

Protesters for many years raised concerns about the weapons issue as well as the potential health risks of the electromagnetic ELF waves the facility produced 24 hours a day. The candidate was first arrested for trespassing on the site in 1984, with many subsequent arrests.

Miles has a master’s degree from North Park Seminary in Chicago. He has three grown children.

Published October 10

Sources:

Wisconsin Vote interview with Mike Miles

Mike Miles for Congress campaign Web site

Dave Obey for Congress campaign Web site

Dave Obey congressional Web site

David Obey candidate profile

First elected to the House of Representatives 35 years ago, Wausau Democrat David Obey is the senior member of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation. This year he faces two third-party challengers in his bid for a 19th term, Wisconsin Green nominee Mike Miles and Constitution Party candidate Larry Oftedahl.

In endorsing Obey six years ago, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel praised the Democrat for retaining his edge. That edge has only sharpened in the four years since George W. Bush was elected president. And with Republicans controlling the House, Obey has repeatedly opposed that chamber’s leadership as it carries forward the administration’s legislative agenda.

Perhaps the most contentious issue has been the budget. As the ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, Obey has led Democrats in denouncing annual tax cuts as sensible economic policy. “We’ve got the widest income disparity in the Western world, and Bush seems to think it’s not wide enough,” Obey says.

Last year the Democrat described the budget narrowly approved by the House as “the most colossally fiscally irresponsible budget in the history of the republic.” The $2.27 trillion budget endorsed $550 billion in tax cuts and increased spending to “reflect” the president’s national defense and economic growth priorities. It was projected to substantially increase the national debt and produce record budget deficits. Obey berated supporters of the spending package for participating in a “shameful and reckless fraud.”

At the same time that lawmakers were negotiating the budget, they were asked to approve $77.9 billion in spending for the war in Iraq and the broader war against terrorism. Obey, already deeply skeptical of the administration’s motives in Iraq, raised concerns that the Iraq spending bill did not reflect an honest accounting of the “real cost” of the war. “I think we are getting into some long term costs associated with this war far in excess of what the Pentagon, the State Department or the White House are admitting,” the congressman said. But Obey, who opposed the resolution authorizing force in Iraq, voted for the bill.

As the budget year came to an end, the administration prepared a new spending request to cover the cost of military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. When the Appropriations Committee approved the package last October, Obey was no longer willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. “I don’t have enough answers to have confidence that the policy behind this package is the correct one,” he said.

Around that same time the congressman made headlines calling for the resignations of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. In a letter to the president, Obey said: “It is impossible to review the record of the past year and not conclude that they have made repeated and serious miscalculations.” Looking back on the run-up to the war, Obey chastised the “raving romantics” in the Defense Department who maintained that the war in Iraq would be a straightforward triumph in democracy building abroad. “The way they were talking, you would have thought that Iraq was going to replace New Hampshire on the presidential primary calendar,” Obey said.

The congressman believes the administration’s credibility problems date back much further than Iraq.

Attempting to expose the “myth” that President Bush is “the great advocate for homeland security,” Obey points to White House efforts to block increased expenditures for homeland security. Last year the Democrat related one episode in which the president allegedly refused to consider a bipartisan plan to boost security spending, threatening to veto any proposal to allocate more money than his budget requested. (Obey and his House and Senate colleagues ultimately prevailed upon the administration the need to increase funding.)

The Democrat likewise takes issue with the president’s record supporting mandates of the No Child Left Behind education bill, which passed Congress with Obey’s support in May 2001.

“The president keeps saying that his education initiatives will leave no child behind, but he says this after he has left a bucket-load of children behind,” Obey remarked last year. He says Congress had increased education spending by roughly 14 percent for five years prior to No Child Left Behind, but under Bush the figure dropped to “about 4 percent. When you adjust for inflation and population growth, that means that Bush is providing kids with less than what they got last year,” Obey said in January 2003. He added: “I’ve never seen a time when rhetoric is more at variance with reality.”

The Obey campaign calls education a “key priority for Dave.” His platform includes reduced class sizes, technology upgrades and strengthening teacher training.

On jobs, Obey is a cosponsor of the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act of 2003, which proposes to check the “expatriation” of corporations who move their operations abroad to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He supports ending tax breaks for companies that slash wages and benefits, and protecting pensions from “insider corporate corruption.” In September Obey voted with the majority in passing legislation to block the Labor Department from implementing new overtime rules favored by the administration. He believes the rules, if enacted, would “for the first time in 80 years scale back workers’ entitlement to overtime pay.”

In striving to preserve the 7th District’s “strong dairy tradition,” Obey favors increasing tariffs on imports of milk protein concentrates. “When milk prices are so low, it’s outrageous that we continue to allow unfair imports of dairy products into the country to further drive down prices,” Obey said last March after lawmakers introduced a bill proposing a tariff hike. A cosponsor of the bill, Obey predicted the legislation would face an “uphill battle because the dairy processors, the White House and powerful members of Congress are all actively opposed to our legislation.” The bill was referred last year to the House Subcommittee on Trade.

Two years ago Obey voted against the Farm Bill, believing the legislation too heavily favored “large corporate operations” and represented only “minor improvements around the edges” for Wisconsin farmers. One of those improvements, in the congressman’s view, is the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC), a taxpayer-funded program that pays dairy farmers when prices fall dramatically. Obey favors extending the program, which is set to expire next year.

(The congressman has recently questioned Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman about a USDA dairy briefing paper that indicates the Bush administration may propose a “milk tax” following the November election and terminate the MILC program.)

A lifelong Wisconsin resident, Obey identifies himself with the progressive tradition of Robert La Follette, who served as Wisconsin’s governor at the turn of the last century and ran for president in 1924. Like La Follette, Obey was once a Republican. “I was a Republican until I saw what McCarthyism did to some very decent people I knew,” he said recently, referring to the 1950s crusade against Communist infiltration of American society led by Wisconsin Republican Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

Obey was raised in Wausau, where he graduated from Wausau East High School. He earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and studied Soviet politics there as a graduate student. Soon after, he entered politics, serving three terms in the Wisconsin Assembly. Obey won a 1969 special election to succeed outgoing Rep. Mel Laird, who was appointed secretary of Defense in the Nixon administration. At the time, Obey was the youngest member of Congress.

Growing up in a musical family, Obey learned to play harmonica, the instrument he plays in the bluegrass group the Capitol Offenses. He says music has been one of the “ties that binds” his family together. Obey is married with two adult sons.

Published October 10

Sources:

Dave Obey U.S. Congress Web site

Dave Obey for Congress campaign Web site

Associated Press, “Congress moves quickly to give administration nearly $80 billion for war costs,” April 4, 2003; story by Jim Abrams

Associated Press, “Congressional GOP leaders hope for quick OK of $87 billion measure for Iraq,” October 10, 2003; story by Alan Fram

Associated Press, “Democrats succeed in challenge to new overtime rules,” September 9, 2004; story by Jim Abrams

Capital Times, “Obey: Reality Belies Bush’s Rhetoric,” January 14, 2003; story by John Nichols

Capital Times, “Obey Pushes Tariff Hike For Dairy Imports,” March 6, 2003

Capital Times editorial, “A Shameful Budget Vote,” April 12, 2003

Capital Times, “Obey Tells Why He Wrote The President; He Contends Rumsfeld Wildly Off In Iraq Views,” September 6, 2003; story by John Nichols

Capital Times, “Dean: Rumsfeld Must Go,” October 4, 2003; story by John Nichols

Federal News Service transcript, “Hearing Of The Foreign Operations, Export Financing And Related Programs Subcommittee Of The House Appropriations Committee”; Subject: The Iraq Reconstruction Program; Chaired By Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ); Witness: Deputy Secretary Of State Richard Armitage, September 24, 2004

Larry Oftedahl candidate profile

Larry Oftedahl, a U.S. Constitution Party candidate in the 7th Congressional District, has made his first run for elective office a family affair. Enlisting the assistance of one of his daughters as campaign manager, Oftedahl says his wife and two daughters have regularly accompanied him on the campaign trail. “We’ve been out where the people are,” he told Wisconsin Vote. “If there’s a festival, we’re there, mingling with the people.”

Oftedahl has likewise participated in candidate forums in Superior, Merrill and Rice Lake, and attended locally sponsored campaign events in a range of 7th District venues, including the Barron County Courthouse Auditorium and the Stevens Point Public Library. “It’s been quite effective as far as we’ve got,” says Oftedahl, acknowledging the challenges of campaigning in the state’s largest congressional district. “There are many places we haven’t even touched.”

Oftedahl has encountered other challenges. He points out, for example, that he and Green party candidate Mike Miles have been “pretty much ignored” by 7th District voters’ guides published in the run-up to the November 2nd election. “Some of them that come out in this district show [the Democratic incumbent] Dave Obey and nobody else listed, as if there’s no opposition,” says Oftedahl. And with scarce funds, the campaign has managed to finance fewer than 200 buttons and only 500 yard signs. “That’s not very many yard signs for a whole district,” the candidate concedes.

One thing Oftedahl says he has not lacked is a receptive audience. He notes that many people he speaks to agree with his positions on issues. “And even the ones that have some disagreements have been very nice,” he says. “We haven’t made any enemies; we’ve made friends.” A former Republican himself, the candidate says Republicans have generally liked what he’s had to say. “And then there are just people that are tired of the current congressman for one reason or another,” he adds. “From what I hear from people in the district, [Obey] doesn’t represent them.”

Oftedahl says the two issues people ask him about most often are abortion and gun control. With respect to the abortion, the candidate is pro-life “without exception,” believing the government has a “duty to protect innocent life.” On the guns issue, Oftedahl says he believes in “criminal control, not gun control. I believe that it is impossible to make a law that would cover every implement that might be used in the commission of a crime, so why not…lock up the criminals instead of restricting the use of firearms by law-abiding citizens.” That position, he says, does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Indeed, the candidate believes that many of the problems that confront America “can be traced to departing from the Constitution.” In particular, he says the federal government has seized powers not specifically granted to it; those powers, he says, belong to the states. “Government that is closer to the people is more responsive to the people, more controllable by the people, and it’s more effective and more efficient,” says Oftedahl. “And things that concern us in this area should be decided more locally rather than voted on by Congress, by many of these congressmen who have no idea about things that concern us.”

One constitutional authority that does concern Congress is war. Oftedahl believes that Congress, by transferring its authority to declare war to President Bush, defaulted on its constitutional responsibility, thereby rendering the Iraq war illegal. A just war is a mandatory war, Oftedahl says, but the Iraq war was optional, and as a consequence has left the country divided. “Our Constitution very wisely does not put that decision to put the whole nation to war in one man,” he says. “It puts it in the Congress, and had we did it the constitutional way, very likely we would never have went to war.”

The candidate calls for bringing American troops home “just as quickly as we can,” leaving the Iraqis to govern themselves. He recognizes a U.S. obligation to assist the Iraqis with “technical advice,” but maintains: “Whatever our mission was we’ve accomplished our mission. We should leave.”

For Oftedahl, Iraq is just one symptom of a larger foreign policy dilemma. He says the U.S. can no longer afford to “surrender” its sovereignty to international organizations like the United Nations, believing the U.N.’s goals “are not the same as the founding principles that we were founded under. The best way that we can help other countries is to tend to our own business, get our own house in order, set an example for other nations to follow - be a city on a hill that they can follow rather than going around the world and trying to impose our type of government on another country,” says Oftedahl.

The candidate’s domestic proposals are similarly far-reaching. He proposes a gradual phasing out of the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security entitlement programs, once the government meets “the obligations that we already have.” Oftedahl says that while government does have a duty to protect life, it has no obligation to provide cradle-to-grave economic security. The candidate believes Medicare in particular is serving people “whether they need it or not,” and the tangle of regulations and paperwork is forcing health care costs to rise.

“We need to think about a more responsible way of doing this, which is not looking to the federal government to provide all of this but looking to ourselves,” says Oftedahl. “We can provide it. We have the money. Let’s not think that just by sending our money on a round-trip to Washington things are going to be better.”

The candidate says he first became familiar with the Wisconsin Constitution Party four years ago in talking with party members who had set up a booth at the Barron County Fair. With a lifelong interest in history and a “passion” for the founding principles of this country, Oftedahl says the Constitution Party “fell in line with what I believe right down the line.” Last April he attended the state party convention in Green Bay, deciding at that time to run for Congress, “partly because I wanted to help the party to get established and to grow,” he says.

Oftedahl was born near Rice Lake on a dairy farm. After graduating from Rice Lake High School, he spent four years in the U.S. Navy, serving a year in Vietnam. He subsequently earned degrees from North Central Bible College in Minneapolis and Evangel College in Springfield, Missouri, where he majored in elementary education. The candidate taught at the junior high level in Michigan, and during the past 12 years has been a substitute teacher in the Barron school system. He works full-time as an inventory coordinator for Jennie-O Turkey Store Company in Barron. Oftedahl is 57 years old.

Published October 24, 2004

Sources:

Wisconsin Vote interview with Larry Oftedahl, October 22, 2004

Constitution Party Web site

Tim Peterson candidate profile

Tim Peterson, a Libertarian candidate in the 5th Congressional District, is making his third attempt for elective office. The leading vote getter among third party candidates in the 2000 U.S. Senate contest, Peterson placed fourth among four candidates vying for State Treasurer in 1998. He says he has based his current bid for Congress “entirely” on a crucial lesson gleaned from his two previous campaigns - “that the Libertarian viewpoint is still a minority in the understanding of people.”

“I’m really focusing on education and helping my fellow residents of the 5th Congressional District to send the strongest message they can with their vote to not waste their vote on the same old, same old,” Peterson told Wisconsin Vote. Twenty-six year incumbent Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Menomonee Falls) and Glendale Democrat Bryan Kennedy are the other candidates in the race.

A Libertarian since the late 1970s, Peterson says he is qualified to serve in Congress because he understands and appreciates the U.S. Constitution. By contrast, the candidate believes his opponents have demonstrated a “very poor appreciation for the value of the United States Constitution, as demonstrated by their rhetoric, their politics, and in the case of Sensenbrenner, his voting record.”

“They don’t seem to realize that being an elected official embodies the responsibility and an oath to defend the constitutional rights of the constituents,” says Peterson.

The candidate believes Sensenbrenner in particular has failed to meet the obligations of fiscal conservatism. Peterson derides the incumbent for voting to increase federal spending, including the $2.4 trillion 2005 budget, which projects a $367 billion deficit and boosts the national debt ceiling by $690 billion to $8.1 trillion. “He voted for that, and yet they’re calling him a fiscal conservative,” says Peterson.

He is likewise critical of the incumbent’s support for President Bush’s major foreign policy initiatives, particularly as it relates to the war on terrorism. He believes the administration’s decision to invade Iraq has left the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorist attack by coalescing “a meeting of those who would [do] harm to Americans.”

Peterson advocates a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of January 2005, following scheduled elections in that country. More essential, Peterson contends, is a drastic revision of U.S. foreign policy - what he calls a “pro-peace foreign policy of non-interventionism.” He believes the U.S. should “give up the failed policy of trying to be the world’s cop and inviting terrorism to the United States, which can never be eliminated. No war on terrorism will be successfully fought through military means,” he says.

Peterson argues that a change in foreign policy would be the most effective means of avoiding terrorism in the United States. “It’s amazing to me that more people don’t see it that way,” he says.

As for the USA Patriot Act, the candidate believes that certain law enforcement measures the legislation approves - “no-knock raids,” electronic surveillance without judicial approval - amount to “very blatant disregard for the Bill of Rights.” Acknowledging that there are “probably some things in there with respect to information sharing between agencies that would be appropriate,” Peterson insists that law enforcement should be given no authority to “abridge our constitutional rights,” particularly “the right to be private in our personal papers and effects.”

On health care, Peterson promotes a fully privatized system. “You can expand coverage by reducing costs, and the way to reduce costs is to get the government out of it,” he says. The candidate proposes eliminating the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a necessary first step in removing government - and politics - from the health care equation. “Their rules and regulations prevent new drugs from hitting the market on a timely basis, and they make all drugs significantly more expensive,” he says.

Peterson believes that with “market-based science on their side” consumers can adequately evaluate the risks involved in taking pharmaceuticals. “Yes, there will be risk,” he concedes, “but I trust the American population to do their research when they don’t have the FDA comfort factor of 'it’s FDA-approved; it must be safe,’ when the reality could be quite the opposite.”

Free-market reform likewise informs the candidate’s education proposals. He seeks to establish a direct financial relationship between parents and schools, with parents having “total autonomy over which school their child attends. In other words, the exact opposite of what we’re doing in America today,” Peterson says. By removing government and ensuring free-market competition, the candidate believes the quality of instruction would vastly improve, with ineffective teachers being “weeded out” of the profession, and students enjoying a wide range of educational options - including the option of not attending school at all.

“When the government gets involved, it becomes nothing more than a socialized indoctrination camp, and that’s what we have today,” Peterson says. “Children don’t learn how to read and do math; they learn how to group think.”

Peterson describes his campaign as “very active.” With no opponent in the September 14th primary, he says local media showed little interest in his candidacy until recently, despite campaign efforts that date back to last year. “I don’t know why the media refuses to give third parties much coverage,” he says, adding that coverage media outlets “do give third parties is so incredibly biased it just knocks my socks off.”

Born in Detroit and raised in suburban Chicago, Peterson has lived in Oconomowoc for the last seven years. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in ag business from the University of Wisconsin-River Falls, and is currently president of Sales Automation Support, a marketing and software firm in New Berlin. Peterson is divorced with no children. He is 45 years old.

Published October 24, 2004

Sources:

Tim Peterson for Congress campaign Web site

Tim Peterson interview with Wisconsin Vote, October 23, 2004

Tom Petri candidate profile

On November 2nd Fond du Lac Republican Tom Petri will be seeking a 14th term in Congress. Having faced no opposition in his reelection bid two years ago, Petri this year encounters challenges from two candidates - Democrat Jef Hall and Wisconsin Green Party nominee Carol Ann Rittenhouse.

Petri is a respected moderate, often praised for his soft-spoken candor and independence. Though he makes few headlines, the Republican has been actively engaged on a range of legislative matters, helping shape and steer through Congress key pieces of legislation.

As vice chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Petri helped push through a major aviation security bill two months after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The final legislation mandated screening of all checked bags and cargo on passenger planes, federalizing air security personnel. “It really will give the executive branch the tools and framework they need to make major improvements in the aviation security system” Petri said, calling the final bill he negotiated an improvement “in many respects” over the original House version.

In 1998 the congressman helped enact the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which changed the funding formula for the Federal Highway Trust Fund. By linking federal transportation spending to gas tax revenues, Wisconsin received $1.03 for every dollar state drivers sent to the trust fund. That, according to the Petri campaign Web site, has meant 11,000 jobs for the state over six years.

With the bill set to expire in 2003, Petri announced his intention to preserve transportation funding close to TEA-21 levels - despite a Bush administration proposal to cut funding by almost a third. As negotiations lingered into 2004, Petri pushed a five-cent gasoline tax to cover a $375 billion transportation package. The transportation committee voted unanimously in late March to approve the measure, but then passed a smaller version the following day, which did not entail a tax hike. The House passed that version of the bill in April, but final legislation has not yet been worked out.

(Ironically, six days after the committee approved the Petri plan, President Bush made a campaign stop in Appleton, thrashing Democrats for pushing a gas tax. He made no mention of Petri or the other Republicans who supported the larger transportation package.)

At the same time that Petri was promoting a gas tax, he sided with House Democrats in voting for non-binding legislation that would have required spending cuts to offset any new tax reductions. One of only 11 Republicans to vote for the measure, Petri said it made sense for lawmakers “to recognize that we should have some budget discipline and efforts to pay for what the government spends.” He added: “Responsible government, basic Republican government is it’s responsible to pay for what you buy, and what you spend.”

Petri has likewise been willing to question defense-spending priorities. In a February 2002 column entitled “Pentagon Overkill,” Petri articulated support for the Afghanistan military effort and the “troops in the field,” but cautioned, “That doesn’t mean that all budgetary restraint has to go out the window.” He noted that Pentagon spending requests would, by some estimates, bring U.S. defense spending to “about 40 percent of the entire world’s total military expenditures,” and called for restraint.

Petri applied that restraint to his “no” vote last year on the administration’s $87 billion Iraq supplemental package. One of only six Republicans to oppose the bill, Petri based his decision on the $21.4 billion tagged for Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction. Recalling his experience as a 1960s Peace Corps volunteer, Petri raised the prospect that Iraq reconstruction, like other “foreign aid activities” before it, could be “ill-conceived, wasteful, and even counterproductive.” (Petri did vote to authorize force in Iraq and for other measures to fund the war.)

The issue on which Petri perhaps most visibly demonstrated his independence in recent years was campaign finance reform.

The congressman has a long record of supporting campaign reform efforts, at one point introducing legislation to encourage small campaign donations while mandating that larger donations be disclosed publicly within 48 hours. But Petri was realistic about the bill’s uncertain prospects, acknowledging the Senate bill, cosponsored by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), was “the only show in town.” That bill passed the Senate in 2001, but its House counterpart, cosponsored by Connecticut Republican Chris Shays and Massachusetts Democrat Marty Meehan, died in the House on a procedural vote.

Soon after, supporters of Shays-Meehan began circulating a “discharge” petition through the House, attempting to compel the Republican leadership to bring the bill up for another vote. By September, 207 House representatives had signed the petition, nine signatures short of what House rules required. Pressure mounted for Petri to sign.

As a senior member of his party and the chairman of a House subcommittee, the congressman faced a dilemma - sign the petition and help move forward legislation he twice supported, or “poke the House leaders in the eyes unnecessarily.” Believing that the discharge petition would prevail with or without his vote, he adopted a wait-and-see approach, resolving to sign only as a last resort.

As the New Year approached, the petition stood three votes short of the necessary 218. Finally, with fresh revelations of Enron Corporation’s hefty “soft money” political contributions - following the Houston-based energy firm’s 2001 collapse - Petri signed the petition. Only 20 House Republicans joined him. When the House voted on the Shays-Meehan bill in February, Petri was one of 41 Republicans to vote for final passage.

But while that vote, and several others, annoyed many of Petri’s GOP colleagues, he has consistently supported Republican initiatives, motivating one constituent to call him “a talk piece for the Bush regime.” (In fact, the same editorial staff that likened Petri’s “thoughtful” independence to that of Jefferson and Madison denounced the congressman as ranking among the “willing pawns of the Bush administration.”)

As vice chairman of the House education committee, Petri helped negotiate the final version of the administration’s No Child Left Behind Act. Acknowledging that the education program could be improved, Petri defended the bill last summer against “overly strident partisan attacks.” Addressing criticism that the administration had failed to fully fund the bill, the congressman observed that federal education funding had “more than doubled over the past nine years and under President Bush has had its biggest rise in any single presidential term since the 1960s.”

Petri has shown similar candor in defending Medicare reform and the prescription drug benefit, which he voted for. Conceding numerous flaws in the final legislation, including a deficient benefit scheme and uneven subsidy distribution, Petri said the program would do more help than harm and condemned the “vicious, misleading attacks” he believes some of the bill’s opponents have made. “It seems that some people would rather trash a useful effort than let President Bush and the current congressional majority get any credit for helping people,” Petri wrote recently.

Meanwhile, the congressman’s vote to grant the president so-called fast-track authority in negotiating trade deals was just one in a long line of Petri votes supporting free trade. Indeed, a 1999 Cato Institute report found that Petri had voted more consistently in favor of free trade than any of his Wisconsin congressional colleagues.

Residents in the 6th Congressional District have had ample opportunity to meet and speak with Petri over the years. His staff keeps tabs of the many “citizen hours” and town meetings the congressman holds during each session of Congress, reporting that he has made 443 stops in 75 towns and cities during the current session.

Born in Marinette, Petri moved to Fond du Lac as a toddler, following the death (in combat) of his father, an Army Air Force lieutenant commander who served in World War II. A product of the Fond du Lac public school system, Petri attended Harvard College in the early 60s. As a student he joined the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, participating in civil rights demonstrations.

After receiving a law degree from Harvard, Petri entered the Peace Corps, serving in Somalia (he had earlier spent time in Kenya on a humanitarian mission). He later joined the United States Agency for International Development. A brief stint in Nixon White House was followed by a return home to Fond du Lac, where Petri practiced law and spent six years in the Wisconsin Assembly.

Petri first won a seat in Congress in 1979 by defeating Wisconsin’s future governor Tommy Thompson in a special primary election to fill the House seat vacated by William Steiger, a liberal Republican who died in office. The Republican’s successful bid for Congress was his second attempt for federal office; he was defeated in a Senate race five years earlier by then-Sen. Gaylord Nelson, a Democrat.

Petri is married with one daughter.

Published October 6

Sources:

Tom Petri for Congress campaign Web site

Rep. Tom Petri congressional Web site

Tom Petri column, “Candor on Campaign Finance Reform,” September 7, 2001

Tom Petri column, “Pentagon Overkill,” February 8, 2002

Tom Petri column, “Give Iraq No Choice,” Oct 11, 2002

Tom Petri column, “Dissent During Wartime,” March 21, 2003

Tom Petri column, “Needed: Fair Trade with China,” October 10, 2003

Tom Petri column, “Skepticism About Iraqi Aid,” October 17, 2003

Tom Petri, “No Child Left Behind,” July 2, 2004

Tom Petri Radio Show transcript, October 31, 2001

Associated Press, “Most calls to Wisconsin lawmakers oppose war,” April 10, 2003; story by Frederic J. Frommer

Associated Press, “Petri breaks ranks with Republicans on tax cuts,” March 30, 2004; story by Frederic J. Frommer

Capital Times editorial, “Fast-Track Friends, Foes,” December 10, 2001

Capital Times, “Too Many Rubber-Stampers in Congress,” October 21, 2003; editorial by John Nichols

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Petri torn between party, beliefs; He hopes campaign reform backers won’t have to sidestep GOP leaders,” September 9, 2001; story by Craig Gilbert

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Petri lauds compromise’s pluses,” November 16, 2001; Craig Gilbert

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Sensenbrenner selected to lead House Judiciary Committee; But Republicans pass over Petri for top job on education,” January 5, 2001; story by Katherine M. Skiba and Craig Gilbert

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Finance reform on the move,” January 25, 2002

Washington Post, “Increase in Federal Gas Tax Has Supporters in Both Parties,” April 10, 2004; story by Dan Morgan

Wisconsin State Journal, “Lawmakers’ Views on Iraq, March 16, 2003

Carole Ann Rittenhouse candidate profile

Carol Ann Rittenhouse, a Wisconsin Green Party candidate for Congress, is a grandmother of seven. That might not typically be the first detail in a candidate’s biography, but for Rittenhouse it’s the basis of her candidacy. "I’m running because I looked at my seven grandchildren one day and asked myself what is it that I’m giving these young folks for their future,” the candidate told Wisconsin Vote.

Rittenhouse says she was thinking in terms of the environment, ruing the state’s lack of clean water and clear air. “Where I live, we had the worst air pollution in Wisconsin in June,” says Rittenhouse, who lives in Sheboygan County. “I thought to myself: I’m a perfectly capable person, and for me to turn my back on those children with what I’m bequeathing to them is wrong. And so that’s what got me motivated to get out of my chair and do something.”

Rittenhouse appears to know something about motivation. A Wisconsin resident since 1951, the candidate has been a residential property manager and real estate broker for most of that time, spent 10 years as executive director of the Wisconsin Council of American Youth Hostels, and served during the past year as the Wisconsin Green Party’s 6th District co-leader. She has taught real estate marketing at Waukesha County Technical College and served on the Waukesha County Board of Realtors. She has been a Girl Scout leader, a PTA vice president, and a member of the Milwaukee Sunrise Rotary. Rittenhouse, who majored in music at Beloit College, is also a licensed vocal instructor and has performed in choirs.

The candidate believes this varied experience has prepared her “to carry forward” her political platform in ways incumbent Rep. Tom Petri (R-Fond du Lac) “hasn’t even considered.” As a start, Rittenhouse is limiting campaign donations to those from individuals contributing $100 or less. She says that, if elected, she would “perhaps” accept contributions from political action committees, adding: “I would need to consider the source.”

Rittenhouse believes Petri, on the other hand, is beholden to corporate contributors and special interests. “It’s not that Mr. Petri is bad; I’m sure he’s a very nice person,” she says. “But as far as who he’s listening to, it’s not beneficial to our local people.” The candidate also faults Petri, a 25-year incumbent, for having a “difficult time going into a debate situation,” claiming the Republican “doesn’t really want to dialogue with people.” (Petri points out that he holds “40 to 60 office hours and town meetings every year,” and makes an effort to “get around to each of the counties in the 6th Congressional District on a regular basis.”)

One dispute Rittenhouse does not have with the incumbent is on the environment.

Petri says he has compiled a strong pro-environment voting record in his years in Congress. Recently, he has opposed oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, and his congressional office notes that “through leadership and persistence Petri has prevented the destruction of the American River near Sacramento, Calif., and stopped the construction of a multi-billion dollar dam.” Acknowledging that she does not “have detail on his every vote,” Rittenhouse said she “certainly applauds” those specific Petri efforts, and raises no particular objections to his environmental record. (Petri’s current League of Conservation Voters scorecard rating is 50 percent, with that number dropping as low as 27% in the 106th Congress, 1999-2000.)

But the candidate’s complaint is not with Petri as much as it is with the larger system. Adopting the campaign slogan “Clean House with Rittenhouse,” the challenger believes Congress is “corporately run” and “is not being run by the people.” Rittenhouse says she is “appalled at the reports I hear about late night meetings and the shortness of debate” in the Republican-controlled Congress. She charges lawmakers with rushing ill-considered resolutions through the two chambers of the legislative branch, often at the direction of the executive. “The rush to war [in Iraq] was ridiculous,” says Rittenhouse, who calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

The candidate believes the first step necessary for a successful end to the conflict in Iraq is a change in national leadership, beginning with the president. “I think that [a] new leader will be able to get the attention of a whole bunch of folks that the current leader has not apparently felt that he needed” to involve in the process, the candidate says. Rittenhouse advocates a central role for the United Nations, calling for U.N. peacekeepers to facilitate democratic elections. She believes a new president will have the credibility to “work with all of the United Nations” in requesting troops from a broad coalition of countries, training them and getting them “into the country to maintain order.”

Far from considering the war in Iraq a legitimate extension of the war on terrorism, Rittenshouse says she doesn’t “even agree with the words the war on terror.” The candidate attributes the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 to the Bush administration’s “arrogance” in pursuing a foreign policy that involves U.S. “meddling in other people’s affairs without cause.” “I don’t blame them for being unhappy because of the way we are acting and treating them,” Rittenhouse says. She adds: “I think that we need to change our act. If we start to treat people the way we would like to be treated, then that’s the beginning.”

Erosions in civil liberties protections at home also concern Rittenhouse. A sharp critic of the USA Patriot Act, the candidate calls for the full restoration of “citizen civil liberties” that she believes the act abridged. Failing that, the Patriot Act should not be renewed, she says. (Certain so-called sunset provisions are up for renewal in 2005; most of the Patriot Act’s provisions are permanent.) In detailing law enforcement abuses the bill has allegedly engendered, Rittenhouse points to the detention of suspects “without cause,” and the government “looking into privacy issues in terms of their Internet work and/or their library work.” She says she is “generally unhappy with the whole posture of the federal government right now with its way of doing things.”

That dissatisfaction extends to health care. Rittenhouse advocates guaranteed national health coverage for all Americans based on a Canadian single-payer model. With a change in national leadership, she predicts a “groundswell of folks” will support such a plan. The candidate claims that America has “the worst health care for a nation of our size in the world. We’re spending double on health care of what we ought to be spending because of the bureaucracies,” she says, specifying as bureaucracies health management organizations and insurance companies.

In waging her first-ever political campaign, Rittenhouse has attracted the support of almost 80 volunteers in distributing campaign buttons and yard signs. She has participated in candidate forums, campaigned door to door, and received “at least a dozen” inquiries from the local press. “I am rather impressed with the amount of interest that I have been receiving as Carol the Novice, so to speak, in terms of running, because I haven’t run in a campaign before,” she says.

Rittenhouse, who turned 71 in April, is one of 10 Wisconsin Green Party candidates who will appear on state ballots in November. Without commenting on her own prospects in the 6th District contest, Rittenhouse dismisses the notion that only Democrats and Republicans can win elections in the U.S. political system. The candidate notes that over 200 Greens currently hold elective office in the country. “And we’re gaining all the time,” says Rittenhouse.

Published October 14

Sources:

Carol Ann Rittenhouse for Congress campaign Web site

Wisconsin Vote interview with Carol Ann Rittenhouse, October 11, 2004

Dale Schultz candidate profile

State Sen. Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center) is vying to reverse the Republican Party’s recent misfortunes in Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District. Having held the House seat for 16 years prior to 1996, the GOP has not had a strong showing in a general election since incumbent Ron Kind (D-La Crosse) won the seat eight years ago. Schultz believes he can change that.

Calling Kind “absolutely vulnerable” in the upcoming election, Schultz says the incumbent has been “out of touch, out of step, and on Nov. 2, in my opinion, he ought to be out of a job.”

The senator has hit Kind hard on a range of issues, including the war in Iraq, job losses, free trade and agriculture. “I don’t want this race to be about personalities,” Schultz said last March. “It will be about issues and effectiveness, because that’s where Ron Kind and I stand in stark contrast.”

Perhaps the most publicized difference between the two candidates has been over the Iraq war. In mid-September Schultz launched an aggressive assault on Kind’s decision to travel to Iraq as part of a bipartisan congressional fact-finding mission. Schultz portrayed the trip as “an attempt by Ron Kind to get out of La Crosse and Eau Claire” to avoid debating important issues.

When Kind’s campaign retaliated with an open letter to Schultz, signed by four area veterans who urged the candidate to “please think before you talk,” the Republicans shot back with their own open letter, signed by five veterans. “Support for our men and women overseas comes in many forms - some more symbolic than substantive,” the letter said, questioning the congressman’s support for the troops, the reconstruction effort and the war itself.

The Schultz campaign has portrayed Kind - who voted to authorize force in Iraq but has subsequently been a sharp critic of the administration’s management of the war - as lacking consistency in his position on Iraq. “When our country should be speaking with a unified voice, Ron Kind speaks out of both sides of his mouth,” the campaign Web site asserts.

Echoing a charge President Bush has repeatedly leveled against Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry, the Schultz campaign insists that Kind has engaged in a “type of wavering” that “does immeasurable damage to the morale of our troops trying to carry out their mission.”

(One specific claim Schultz makes is that Kind “traveled to Iraq saying we must invest in the infrastructure of Iraq, and then voted to cut reconstruction funding in half.” While it is true that Kind worked to modify the $87 billion supplemental fund passed by Congress last October, he voted for it in the end.)

For his own part, Schultz supports limited attempts to internationalize the effort, believing that “this country should [never] ask permission from other countries whether or not it has a right to defend itself.’ He adds: "I support the fact that we are attempting to engage our enemies offshore. I don’t want to see that battle taking place on American soil.”

In some ways, the Iraq issue has been a diversion for Schultz from the major theme of his campaign - jobs and trade. The Republican portrays himself as an advocate of “fair trade,” whose first concern is protecting American jobs from being shipped abroad. Schultz characterizes the incumbent’s “unabashed” support for free trade as a serious drain on jobs, especially in the 3rd Congressional District.

“The whole western side of the state has been badly hit,” Schultz said last May. “Globalization has been very, very hard on small towns and on the traditional manufacturing sectors, and yet Ron Kind has been one of the leading free-traders.”

One particular objection Schultz raises is Kind’s support of normalizing trade relations with China. He believes that has had a particularly devastating effect on job losses.

While Schultz’s plan is noticeably short on specifics, he has voiced support of the so-called Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a state-federal initiative that supports small manufacturers. Kind also promotes the plan, as do Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards. But Schultz doubts their sincerity. “What we have here is a couple of Johnny-come-latelies and Ron Kind offering to be a mouthpiece for them,” he says, alleging that Kind is asking voters to “swallow a grandiose plan two months in front of an election.”

(Kind’s Web site notes that the incumbent “perennially fights on behalf of the program,” pushing for full funding.)

If Schultz has distanced himself from the Republican mainstream on trade, his recent vote on the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) in the state Senate demonstrated similar independence. The legislation proposed to establish constitutional spending and taxing limits statewide. Schultz was one of three Republicans to vote against it.

Elsewhere, Schultz’s efforts in restoring the independence of the state Department of Natural Resources earned him the praise of the left-leaning Capital Times as a “refreshingly independent and open-minded legislator.” As a member of the Senate Environmental Resources Committee, Schultz two years ago won plaudits from the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters for supporting legislation to protect isolated wetlands.

A moderate on some issues, Schultz has staked out partisan conservative positions on others. He opposes so-called partial birth abortion and voted last spring in favor of a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. On the marriage amendment, Schultz says he’d prefer to “stay out of people’s sex lives,” but believes “the people, rather than judges” should resolve the issue. (Kind voted against the abortion ban and opposes the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment.)

Schultz has perhaps made his biggest legislative impact on agriculture issues. Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Schultz calls agriculture the backbone of western Wisconsin’s economy. He recently authored legislation to enable farm families to grow their businesses and a bill offering tax credits to dairy farm operators. Schultz has also supported initiatives to encourage ethanol production, including a bill he cosponsored in 2003 to require that fuel companies produce gasoline containing a minimum 10 percent ethanol by 2008.

The senator has criticized his Democratic opponent for “abandoning” agriculture by voting against the Farm Security Act of 2001. That legislation included a price support program for dairy farmers buffeted by low milk prices and provided relief to the state’s family farmers. Kind, who served on the House Agriculture Committee, made several attempts to amend the bill but concluded the final version failed the “test of fiscal responsibility and [did] not provide regionally equitable assistance.”

As a way to emphasize his ties to agriculture, Schultz unveiled a number of “silo wrap” campaign banners this spring. Forty feet high, the silo-slung billboards present a full-length color photo of the candidate standing, arms crossed, alongside the slogan “Schultz Stands With Farmers.”

The banners have provided Schultz a unique form of visibility in his bid to unseat the incumbent Kind. The candidate has also used more conventional means of reaching voters, including radio ads and a campaign Web site. Newsletters issued in the spring picture Schultz introducing President Bush at a May campaign rally in La Crosse and making the case for a Schultz victory.

Noting that Republicans hold 14 of the 19 state legislature seats that comprise the 3rd Congressional District, Schultz maintains, “This is Republican territory.” What’s more, Schultz believes the Bush campaign’s intensive efforts to court area voters, as well as two “key” state Senate races in the district, will impact favorably - from his point of view - on the House contest.

Schultz, who turned 51 last June, has lived in Wisconsin his entire life. He earned a Bachelor of Business Administration degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1975. A four-term veteran of the Wisconsin Senate, Schultz earlier spent nine years as a state Assembly representative, elected to a first term in 1982. Schultz is also a real estate broker, and with his wife Rachel manages a 200-acre family farm. The couple has two daughters, Katie and Amanda. They live in Richland Center.

Published September 16

Sources:

Dale Schultz for Congress campaign Web site

Dale Schultz for Congress “Campaign Update” newsletter, May and June 2004 editions

Dale Schultz for Congress campaign response to veterans, September 18, 2004

Ron Kind U.S. Congress Web site

Ron Kind for Congress, “Open Letter to State Senator Schultz,” September 17, 2004

Ron Kind press release, “Congressman Ron Kind’s Plan for Energizing American Manufacturing,” March 2004

Capital Times editorial, “For the Senate,” November 2, 2002

Capital Times, “Dairy Credit Bill Moves Forward,” December 4, 2003; story by Anita Weier

Capital Times, “Bush Battles For Western Wisconsin; Bus Tour Bids To Take Area From Dems,” May 7, 2004; story by David Callender

Capital Times, “Schultz Files To Run Against Kind,” September 12, 2003; story by Anita Weier

Eau Claire Leader-Telegram, “Candidates Differ on War Strategy,” June 12, 2004; story by Tom Giffey

La Crosse Tribune, “Schultz to challenge Kind for Congress,” March 16, 2004; story by Reid Magney

La Crosse Tribune, “Kind making trip to Iraq,” September 16, 2004; story by Reid Magney

Pierce County Herald editorial, “West is awake, stops TABOR,” August 11, 2004

Telegraph Herald (Dubuque Iowa), “Wisconsin moves to ban same-sex unions; Area lawmakers say citizens should have the final say on the issue,” March 6, 2004; story by Craig Reber

Telegraph Herald (Dubuque Iowa), “Competition mounts in congressional race; Kind questions state senator’s funding source in bid to represent Wisconsin,” February 29, 2004; story by Mary Rae Bragg

Wisconsin Radio Network, “Schultz says Kind, Kerry not for real on rural development,” Doug Cunningham, August 17, 2004

F. James Sensenbrenner candidate profile

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., a Menomonee Falls Republican, is seeking a 14th term in the U.S. House of Representatives. A well-funded incumbent representing a secure Republican district, Sensenbrenner is considered a heavy favorite in the November 2nd election. He’ll face first-time candidate Bryan Kennedy, a 34-year-old professor of Portuguese at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Kennedy, a Democrat, has aggressively targeted Sensenbrenner’s “vast stock portfolio,” accusing the incumbent of “voting with his wallet” on such issues as the Iraq war and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Sensenbrenner meanwhile has done little public campaigning, finishing up a busy legislative session in Washington that is expected to run through October 8th.

As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the Republican has played a leading role on critical legislative matters, particularly since the Bush administration launched its war on terrorism following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The first major legislation to emerge in the wake of those attacks was the USA Patriot Act. Sensenbrenner made frequent headlines in the fall of 2001 as he shaped the House antiterrorism bill and helped steer it through Congress. His leadership on the issue attracted the praise of House colleagues, newspaper editorial boards, and constituents back home.

Convening his committee’s first hearings on the subject only days after the attacks, Sensenbrenner set out to “enhance law enforcement’s ability” to combat terrorism while insisting legislation “should not do anything to take away the freedom of innocent citizens.”

By early October Sensenbrenner and the committee’s ranking Democrat, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, had produced a “delicately balanced” compromise bill the The New York Times concluded “goes far to correct overreaching” proposals advanced by Attorney General John Ashcroft. The administration had sought broad, permanent expansion of law enforcement authority, limiting judicial review of electronic surveillance and detention of aliens.

As negotiations wore on, Sensenbrenner expressed his frustration with the Justice Department’s insistence on including proposals he considered unwise. Calling talks with the department “extremely strained,” Sensenbrenner stood his ground, pointedly criticizing the Senate version, which he believed made “no attempt to balance the needs of law enforcement with the protection of civil liberties and privacy.”

One key difference between the Senate and House bills was a sunset provision contained only in the House version. Sensenbrenner believed that making certain controversial aspects of the bill temporary was necessary for bipartisan support. He was right: the bill won the overwhelming support of both chambers of Congress with a compromise four-year sunset provision, the product of a late-night closed-door session.

Conceding that final legislation was “not perfect,” Sensenbrenner nonetheless declared the Patriot Act “a bill that is vitally needed.” And even as accusations of a backroom deal persisted, Madison Rep. Tammy Baldwin, a liberal Democrat who serves on the Judiciary Committee, hailed the chairman’s efforts as “masterful.” Sensenbrenner for his part described the bill as “the hardest thing I have ever done in my years of elective service.”

But the chairman’s work on the issue was far from over. Barely six months after the legislation passed, the Bush administration imposed new domestic surveillance guidelines dramatically expanding FBI authority. Sensenbrenner, who was given two-hours notice of the changes, said the Justice Department had “gone too far,” and accused the administration of throwing “respect for civil liberties into the trash heap.” The regulations effectively overturned safeguards established in1976 to curtail FBI abuses.

The following spring Sensenbrenner once again entered the political fray as lawmakers on Capitol Hill floated legislation, the so-called Hatch Amendment, to make permanent many of the law enforcement powers contained in the Patriot Act. At the same time, the Justice Department was reported to be drafting a new package of anti-terrorism proposals. The move was widely viewed as an attempt to remove the sunset provisions of the Patriot Act. “If they want the sunset to be repealed, they’re going to have to show that [the Patriot Act] is constitutional and has done good things,” Sensenbrenner said.

Even as Sensenbrenner has continued to resist efforts to make the law permanent - declaring at one point, “That will be done over my dead body” - he has not been prepared to modify it. He does not support legislative proposals introduced in either the House or the Senate that would repeal parts of the law. He simply wants to wait till next year, when the sunset clauses will take effect. (Sensenbrenner recently indicated his intention, if re-elected, to convene committee hearings on renewing the Patriot Act following the Easter congressional recess.)

Despite the unyielding vigilance Sensenbrenner has applied to the issue, he continues to count himself among the law’s supporters. Writing on the second anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Sensenbrenner noted, “Over $125 million in assets suspected of funding terrorist activities have been frozen globally.” He lauded the “significant tools” the law provides in accomplishing such objectives. Last summer Sensenbrenner went further, calling a press conference with Attorney General Ashcroft to unveil results of a Department of Justice report demonstrating, from that agency’s point of view, the Patriot Act’s effectiveness in fighting crime and terrorism, including in two cases in Wisconsin.

“By providing law enforcement officials with better tools to capture terrorists and criminals, the Patriot Act has made Wisconsin, and America, safer places for all of us,” the congressman said.

Sensenbrenner was also a central figure in creating the Department of Homeland Security and eliminating the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

In April 2002, Ashcroft announced an administration plan to restructure INS, separating its service and enforcement functions. Sensenbrenner rejected the plan, saying it didn’t “go far enough for the rescue mission that is needed.” The congressman countered with his own proposal (introduced the previous November) to abolish the INS, dividing its functions between two agencies. Fourteen days later Sensenbrenner’s proposal had the administration’s endorsement. The House passed the bill by a vote of 405 to 9.

In November of that year the House approved legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security, which Sensenbrenner strongly supported. That agency created the bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which effectively replaced INS.

Sensenbrenner likened the reforms to a home security system. “When an unwanted intruder attempts to enter our country or cause damage, the alarm will sound a little sooner, and the response to the threat will be swifter and more efficient. That will enable many of us to sleep a little better at night,” said the congressman.

For Sensenbrenner the Iraq war was a legitimate extension of the war on terrorism. He voted for the October 2002 resolution authorizing force and “fully” supported the president’s decision to go to war the following spring. “We are showing that we have learned the lessons of World War II and September 11th, and that we have committed ourselves to ensuring that those horrors are not repeated,” said Sensenbrenner at the time.

While the Democratic challenger Kennedy chastises the incumbent for voting to go to war in order to boost his stock holdings - a charge Sensenbrenner rejects - the Milwaukee State Journal pointed out last summer that the Republican regularly “invites scrutiny into his holdings,” entering annual net worth statements into the Congressional Record. The wealthiest member of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation, Sensenbrenner’s stocks are currently worth more than $7 million, with $61,000 stock in Halliburton Energy Services, a key contractor in Iraq.

The congressman’s pharmaceutical holdings are more substantial, with his shares in Merck & Co. Inc. totaling $1.5 million. Again Kennedy takes aim, alleging that the incumbent is “obviously in bed with” the pharmaceutical lobby. The Democrat denounces Sensenbrenner for voting against the prescription drug benefit passed as part of Medicare reform last year. But Kennedy’s claim is only partially correct. Sensenbrenner voted against the House bill in June of last year, citing concerns about the cost, but then voted for the final version that passed in November.

One issue where Sensenbrenner’s voting record has been absolutely clear is trade with China. He opposes permanent normal trade relations with China, the world’s number two economy, and believes that country’s accession to the World Trade Organization three years ago (a condition of normalizing trade) amounted to letting “the horse out of the barn.”

Sensenbrenner particularly objects to alleged Chinese abuses of intellectual property rights and the outsourcing to China of American manufacturing jobs - dual manifestations, he contends, of unfair trade practices by China. “Literally thousands of jobs are being lost in southeast Wisconsin,” he said last year. “It’s about time our government … woke up to the fact that free trade has got to be fair trade; otherwise free trade doesn’t work.”

When Sensenbrenner traveled to China earlier this year it was only one of many foreign trips he has taken during the 108th Congress. Last year he ventured to Thailand, India, Japan, Taiwan and Qatar, returning to the Persian Gulf earlier this year. While congressional watchdog groups occasionally raise questions about the funding of these trips, no ethics probe has been initiated, and expenses are well documented.

As the Democrat Kennedy continues to raise his own questions about the congressman’s ethics, few observers doubt that Sensenbrenner will win another term in Congress. A winner two years ago with 86 percent of the vote, Sensenbrenner has been more than adept at fending off the harsh criticisms of opponents. Four years ago, in fact, Democrat Mike Clawson battered Sensenbrenner for his contentious role as House impeachment manager in the 1999 Senate trial of President Bill Clinton. The Republican won that election by a three-to-one margin.

If Sensenbrenner does win in November, and the Republicans hold their House majority, his next term as Judiciary chairman will be his last (according to House rules). Speculation that another term will be his last in Congress appears groundless. “Whoever is spreading that rumor wants to make me an instant lame duck and wants to reduce my clout in Washington and Wisconsin,” Sensenbrenner told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last April.

Saying he had no plans to retire in 2006, the 61-year-old congressman turned his thoughts to the upcoming election. “The good Lord and the voters being willing, this fall I will ask them to send me back to Washington and see what I can do,” he said.

Sensenbrenner was born in Chicago, heir to the Kimberly-Clark paper manufacturing fortune. A former practicing attorney, Sensenbrenner earned a law degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1968. He married Cheryl Warren nine years later. The couple has two sons, Frank and Bob. They live in Menomonee Falls, maintaining additional residences in Chenequa and Alexandria, VA.

Published October 6

Sources:

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. U.S. Congress Web site

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. column, “The Department of Homeland Security,” November 14, 2002 (from congressional Web site)

Bryan Kennedy for Congress campaign Web site

The Associated Press, “House prepares to move anti-terror compromise that would give police new search powers,” October 24, 2001; story by Jesse J. Holland

Capital Times, “Baldwin Fails to Sway House on Gay Marriage” (first edition); “Baldwin Fails To Stop House On Gay Marriage” (second edition), July 23, 2004; story by Michael Morain

Federal News Service transcript, “Panel I Of A Hearing Of The House Judiciary Committee,” Subject: Terrorism; Chair: Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI); Witnesses: Attorney General John Ashcroft,“ September 24, 2001

Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), "House okays terror bill,” October 25, 2001; story by James Kuhnhenn

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Sunrise edition, “Lawmakers in spotlight over bill on terrorism; Sensenbrenner, Feingold draw praise for roles,” October 14, 2001; story by Craig Gilbert

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Final edition, “Lawkmaker’s comments irk White House; Administration official rebukes Sensenbrenner for remarks to reporter,” October 14, 2001; story by Craig Gilbert

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Sensenbrenner denies retirement rumor,” April 18, 2004; story by Katherine M. Skiba and Jeff Nelson

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Sensenbrenner makes net worth transparent,” June 20, 2004; story by Katherine M. Skiba

Washington Post, “Ashcroft Announces Reform Plan for INS; Enforcement, Service Functions Would Be Split,” November 15, 2001; story by Cheryl W. Thompson

Wisconsin State Journal, “Lawmakers’ Views on Iraq,” March 16, 2003

Wisconsin Vote, 2004
T a m m y   B a l d w i n   I n t e r v i e w

Q Your Republican opponent, Dave Magnum, claims you don’t have “anything significant to show” for your six years in office. The Wisconsin State Journal said last month the Republican was “likely to make Baldwin squirm as she tries to justify another ineffective two years in Washington championing a far-left agenda of universal health care and similar pipe dreams.” What is your response to those criticisms?

Rep. Baldwin: (Answer transcribed in progress due to brief audio break) – accomplishments for the people that I represent in south-central Wisconsin, ranging from very significant success in securing federal funding for worthy projects, ranging from health care - I have, for example, helped build a new emergency room at the Columbus Hospital; helping to bring X-ray equipment to rural hospitals; helping respond to the needs of the uninsured by supporting the Madison Community Health Center that serves uninsured people.

In economic development I’ve been very successful in securing funding for small businesses that are looking for opportunities to work with the federal government and have something to offer us in our homeland security or other areas.

In the transportation arena, of course, keeping our infrastructure up to date helps to assure that we will be a place for growth and economic development.

So over the three terms that I’ve had the honor of serving the people of the 2nd Congressional District, I’ve brought back in excess of $64 million to help address the health care and the job development needs.

But I do want to go a little bit further than that. I feel that my legislative successes in terms of having input into the bills that have gone through - I had very significant successes in shaping the Violence Against Women Act as a member of the Judiciary Committee and influencing dairy policy.

And then obviously we work one on one with the constituents that I have the honor of representing, and often go above and beyond in terms of responding to their needs with respect to federal agencies. For example, intervening on behalf of a veteran who’s been wrongly denied disability benefits, or helping reunite the family who has adopted a Nepali child but hasn’t gotten the visa from our government. We have spent hours on cases like that with very successful outcomes that really matter in people’s lives.

Q On health care, Magnum contends you have “continued to drag out the same old health care plan for five and a half years,” adding that your plan “wouldn’t effectively or efficiently solve our problem.” What do you say to counter that? And elaborate, if you will, on the evolution of that plan. The state-federal partnership you propose is a change from past proposals, is it not?

Rep. Baldwin: Well, let’s start with the first part of your question. I believe very strongly that we need to aspire to having health care for all in this country. One of the things that made this country great is our commitment to education for every child, and I believe the same is true about health care. I also believe that that is a bold aspiration. And like many other bold things we have done in this country - say, for example, universal suffrage, winning the right to vote for women, winning the right to vote for African-Americans - these things take significant investment of time, energy, passion - and time. The effort to win the right to vote for women took decades - over a century. This is a bold aspiration. But it will never happen if people aren’t working on it. And I am honored to have a group of people that I represent who say go, Tammy, go. This is something that we absolutely must achieve in this country. So I have no apologies for going after something big and bold because it will make America a better country.

Having said that, I take that mission seriously, and I don’t think one can just say that one supports universal health care and not have tangible steps to say we’re making progress. And so as I came here first as a freshman representative I had my sense of what would be the most efficient way to achieve health care coverage for all Americans. But I also studied carefully and realized that the plan that I support hadn’t gotten anywhere, it hadn’t moved. It had its core of supporters. I was one of them. But it wasn’t going anywhere. And I don’t think we can just sit back and wait until the day is right. So I started working with others invested in the same goal, across the aisle. In fact, across the capital I’ve worked with senators on new concepts, and I work with people outside the institution of Congress who are applying their skills and their energies towards this goal and bringing folks together to talk about new, creative ways to break the gridlock in Congress.

That brings me to the second part of your question. In my first term in Congress, I paired up with Senator [Paul] Wellstone of Minnesota in looking at a new way to break the gridlock of Congress, to say let’s engage in what some have called creative federalism. Let’s bring the debate to the state level and empower, through incentives, the state governments to develop universal health care plans. They’d have to be approved by the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services after meeting certain criteria that we would set at the federal level. But let’s see some of these ideas that we’ve been debating about in Congress piloted in the states. This is very similar to Tommy Thompson’s experiment with welfare. Let’s have the states decide how to do this and then they’ll be the laboratories. It’s very much in the tradition of the Wisconsin Idea, which I’m sure you’re familiar with.

I drafted legislation and Senator Wellstone introduced companion legislation in the Senate. But as we started, this was not yet a bipartisan project, but there was no reason why it couldn’t be. So the next step that I am in the process of taking is to say to my Republican friends who share my commitment to universal health care, let’s sit down together. “Do you have anything against this model?”

“No, we have nothing against this model.”

“Well, what are your concerns? How can we move forward?”

And they are excited about it because it produces the possibility that maybe their home state might pilot something in the lines of a conservative model that they’ve been trying to push forward. I get excited because some of the things that I think will work might get piloted in other states. And there’s no reason why we can’t move something like this forward in a bipartisan fashion.

Q And at the state level, you’ve worked recently with some Wisconsin state legislators as well in trying to push forward -

Rep. Baldwin: Absolutely. Mark Miller, who is actually running for an open Senate seat right now but served in the state Assembly for some terms now - many terms now - has introduced legislation that would be a universal health care system in Wisconsin. It’s a single-payer model. And I have worked closely with him, and he is also in turn excited about our discussions in Congress, because it would allow Wisconsin to try that and to receive federal support and encouragement for trying that. But you know, there might be another state somewhere else in the country that would want to experiment with something that the conservatives have embraced.

Q That more reasonably suits their region -

Rep. Baldwin: Right. It may help us answer the question of do we need a one-size-fits-all approach ultimately, or do we have different regional needs in this country?

Q You spoke a minute ago about this being a long-term effort, but you’ve also remarked that you could see a once-in-a-decade opportunity for movement on universal health care following the next set of elections.

Rep. Baldwin: Yes.

Q Do you believe that’s the case now, and will that be true if George W. Bush wins reelection?

Rep. Baldwin: I think there is a real opportunity, and it relates to the confluence of several factors. One is we are at an all-time high in the number of people who lack insurance - 45 million. And that - I just want to be real specific - that number only counts people who lacked insurance for a full year; that’s not counting people who might have lacked insurance for a month or a week here or there changing jobs, et cetera. If you count them, you’re talking 75 million people. You’re talking about, if they spoke with one voice, a group that could create a deafening roar in this country that no politician could ignore.

Secondly, increasingly folks who were not at the table at the last major debate on health care reform are now. I could count any number of instances where people, when I first started running with this bold notion of, you know, we need to have major health care reform, we need to have health care for all, were saying, you know, “Whoa, Tammy, slow down; the private sector is working this out just fine.” They’re now coming to me and saying, “We can’t afford the premium increases for our employees. I now believe that some government intervention is warranted.” So I think those folks come to the table where they weren’t at the table before, or if they were, it was reluctantly and highly skeptically. I do believe there is going to be political change.

Now, your question said am I as optimistic if Bush is elected versus Kerry. I certainly have much more optimism if Kerry is elected because he has committed to bold change and is really concerned about the uninsured in the country and has plans to close that gap significantly. But even if - and I’m a strong Democrat; it’s hard for me to even say the next sentence - but even if George W. Bush were reelected, the state-by-state approach is one that both conservatives and progressives can embrace, because it allows the president - I mean, the president has a few ideas about health care, and he’s had a lack of success - actually a stunning lack of success, given the fact that his party controls both houses of Congress; you would think that his health care agenda could be rubber stamped immediately. But maybe he could finally try to out some of his ideas if a state or two were to embrace them. So he has every reason to like this approach also.

Q Now, using health care as sort of a segue to this next question, the president has campaigned in 2004 as an agent of reform, saying Democrats offer an agenda that is stuck in the thinking and the policies of the past.“ You belong to the Progressive Caucus in Congress, one of the most consistently anti-Bush coalitions in Congress. Does the Caucus offer an agenda stuck in the thinking and the policies of the past, or is it truly progressive and forward looking?

Rep. Baldwin: Well, I guess I would say both, and say it proudly. I’m from Wisconsin. I represent a district in south-central Wisconsin that was previously represented by Fighting Bob La Follette at the turn of the last century. Bob La Follette was critical in forming the Progressive Party. He was a Republican, and then he sort of branched off. And why did he form a progressive party? Because he was sick of watching corrupt corporate power and corrupt government power strip away the voice of the people. If that’s old thinking, then I am proud to associate myself with Fighting Bob La Follette.

But what’s remarkable is how similar the circumstances are today, as they were when he founded the progressive movement, the Progressive Party, when he founded the Progressive Magazine; and newspapers like the Capital Times have a tradition that dates back there. We have, again, a time when large corporations have unlimited access to the top power in this country. If you look at, for example, the drafting of the energy bill that happened behind closed doors in the vice president’s office with the biggest corporations writing the legislation, and then the public couldn’t have any transparency and find out who influenced it; or if you look at the writing of the Medicare bill, which is a gift to the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry that will be writing those plans. We are again at a time where this type of erosion of the citizen power, citizen voice in government is at a crisis point. And we absolutely need a forward-looking reinvigorated progressive movement to restore power to people.

Q Following your vote last October against the $87 billion supplemental fund for the Iraq war and reconstruction, you said: "I don’t think they have a plan. But I think everyone agrees that the current funding request is just the tip of the iceberg. This could be a bottomless hole.” Describing the situation as “almost surreal,” you expressed “huge misgivings on how this money is being spent,” and voted against the bill. How do you feel about the situation one year later, and do criticisms that you voted against supporting troops in harm’s way have any resonance?

Rep. Baldwin: Well, in looking at the remarks I made at the time, I guess I would remark on how true they’ve turned out to be. Eighty-seven billion dollars then is now $200 billion.

But I want to actually tie this in with the excellent question you just asked before that, about the need for a progressive movement. That bill for $87 billion is another perfect example of lack of accountability, lack of a plan, lack of a process. And what do I mean by that? The no-bid contracts, the amount of money that was just given to Halliburton. And then since that time we’ve heard about their over-billing, their infractions, some of their corporate practices in dealing in the past with terrorist-supporting nations. I mean, frightening things that at the time we were debating that bill I was concerned about, and they’ve ended up transpiring. We as a Congress, we are supposed to control the purse strings. We’re supposed to be fiscally responsible. You can’t just write a blank check and turn around to the taxpayers and say you’re being responsible.

Now, I want to say very explicitly and very clearly: I support our troops. And I want them to have not only the pay they deserve for putting - for being willing to put themselves in harm’s way, but all the equipment that they need to be as safe as they can, given the circumstances that our nation has placed them in. And we - you know, it’s why I have voted in favor of defense appropriations bills. But the bill that we’re talking about - the $87 billion with no-bid contracts to Halliburton, with no accountability for the American taxpayer, a blank check to this president for a war that many of us counseled him not to fight because it would distract from our efforts against terrorism – that, every American should be concerned about.

Q On homeland defense, Dave Magnum said recently no civil liberties have been violated under the Patriot Act. He went on to say the law has prevented additional terrorist attacks within the United States. Do you agree?

Rep. Baldwin: Well, I serve as a member of the House Judiciary Committee. The Patriot Act went through that committee. But after the bill was passed and signed into law, the Judiciary Committee had a responsibility, and has a responsibility ongoing, to oversee the implementation of that. Chairman [James] Sensenbrenner and members of the committee signed on to letters that he authored, repeatedly requesting Attorney General John Ashcroft to come into the committee and testify about the implementation of the USA Patriot Act so we could ask questions about civil liberty violations. He refused. This is unbelievable to me, first of all.

So ultimately our committee sent him a list of questions that we wanted answered in his absence - you know, in his refusal to come to the committee. At least let’s send him questions so we can ascertain whether people’s civil liberties are being violated or not, whether these tools that were provided to him in the Patriot Act are being used appropriately. He responded after long delays to the committee with a document that was classified as top secret - meaning that were I to go and read the answers to the questions, I could not then emerge and discuss them with you or discuss them with my constituents. I ended up after careful thought deciding not to go review his answers because I don’t want to be in the position where I might know something that I can’t as a public official share with the public on this. And so we are not in a position to know whether or not American civil liberties are being violated by the provisions of the Patriot Act, and that’s wrong in a country that rests on the rule of law and believes in an open, transparent process for holding people accountable for breaking the law.

Q What do you think the prospects for revising parts, repealing parts, rewriting parts of the law are in the next Congress as the Judiciary Committee takes that up?

Rep. Baldwin: I think it telling that despite the administration’s strong push for us to make permanent all of the provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to sunset - and there’s a series of provisions that will sunset in 2005 - I think it telling that Chairman Sensenbrenner has not scheduled hearings or movement on that - that he believes we need more data, more information, and wants to go through this “planfully” and thoughtfully. Certainly to me that says that we can have a rational debate as we did early on in the committee’s dealing with this legislation.

The pressure, the political pressure is certainly there. As you know, the Patriot Act was passed within months of the September 11th attacks in an environment of fear, anxiety. I think the fact that Chairman Sensenbrenner wants to do this next year means that we might actually have a rational debate that isn’t surrounded by anxiety but rather factual data, hopefully provided publicly by the attorney general - this or the next one.

Q On the second anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 2001 you said: “Americans want to know if they’re safer now than on” September 11th. “The answer is complex,” you concluded. Is the answer still complex? And are we safer today?

Rep. Baldwin: Well, I have a lot of concerns about the impact of this president’s decision to go to war in Iraq - the impact of that decision on our efforts to combat terrorism. The number of service members and others that are deployed to Iraq, the amount of monetary resources that are dedicated to Iraq have, without doubt, restricted what is available to fight terrorism. And I have always believed that the threat of nuclear proliferation, the threat posed by al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are imminent. As I voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq, I believed that there was no imminent threat posed there to the U.S. And I am very concerned with that huge commitment of resources that we have not done the job that we could have done, and I believe that we are more vulnerable.

Q What are the top concerns that constituents have raised in the listening sessions that you’ve had, and how are you the best candidate to act on those concerns?

Rep. Baldwin: Well, consistently throughout the time that I’ve had the honor of serving the people of south-central Wisconsin, the number one issue raised to me, usually in the form of a personal story or anecdote, has been about health care. Stories from parents who have, say, a child with a mental illness, and they find that, while they have health care coverage, it doesn’t cover more than a small number of visits. These stories are a constant theme. And this is my passion to address this issue. I want to some day be able to look these same people in the face and say, you know, hope is on the way. And everywhere I go, especially now that we’re on the campaign trail - a nurse walked up to me last Saturday at the Farmer’s Market in Madison saying, you know: “I’m a nurse, and just please keep on your efforts. You just keep on. Don’t ever let anyone dissuade you from that.” This is the most important thing.

I would say that in more recent years that the second most significant concern that I hear about is job loss or - because we’ve lost a significant number of manufacturing jobs, particularly in our area. But also folks who might have gotten a modest raise but their health insurance went up by an even greater percent and ate it all up, and then their kid’s heading to college and tuition just went up; or they have young ones and child care expenses just went up, and they feel like they’re losing ground rather than gaining ground in our current economy. And there’s a lot of agitation out there about that.

And then I’ve heard a lot more about our foreign policy and terrorism, of course. That’s episodic. You know, after September 11th that was all I heard, for a long period of time - Appropriately, and we all understand that.

So those are things that weigh on the minds of the people I represent.

Why am I the best person? It’s based on experience, it’s based on a record of accomplishment, and it’s based on an absolute solid commitment to believing that in a democracy we can achieve these results. I wouldn’t run for office if I didn’t believe that we could use our democracy to achieve results that better people’s lives. I wouldn’t do that. I don’t believe in wasting our time. I believe it can be done. It takes a ton of work. But I do believe I’m the person to do it.

Q Legislation you’ve authored often dies in committee, amendments you propose to legislation fall short of passage; you’ve repeatedly voted “no” for measures that pass the House anyway. First, would you agree with those characterizations, and second, to the extent that they’re true, does it make you an ineffective legislator?

Rep. Baldwin: Well, I wouldn’t agree with those characterizations at all.

If you have pride of authorship, if you insist that in order for it to be a success your name has to be number one, and you have to have your name in headlights - spotlights - your name up on the marquee, et cetera - sure, somebody could look at my accomplishments as a member of the minority party in the U.S. Congress and say, hmm, you know. I have been very successful in terms of getting legislation passed by allowing, you know - working on bills where I don’t necessarily have my name number one. We might be doing the grunt work to get this done, but I recognize I’m a pragmatist. I know how legislatures work based on my experience working in legislatures. And I am absolutely willing to have a Republican’s name first if I get the job done for my constituents. And that’s what this is about.

In my first term on the Judiciary Committee we were reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. I had significant new provisions added to help address elder abuse issues and to help address the needs of victims of sexual assault and domestic violence who have disabilities, who might have trouble in court or in service agencies because of physical barriers or not having access to hearing interpreters, or those sorts of things. I still remember the Tammy Baldwin-Bob Barr amendment to a particular bill that was going through Judiciary Committee. In this case it was a civil liberties provision that he and I agreed on, and I think everyone on the committee said that if Tammy Baldwin and Bob Barr agree on something, it’s got to be okay. And we were able to pass it through.

And there’s any number of instances where, through my work, I’ve gotten significant legislation appended to appropriations bills that were winding their way through. So I’m very proud of my legislative accomplishments, even if it doesn’t have my name in the headlights, because what it’s all about is delivering for the people who ask me to represent them in Congress.

Rep. Baldwin responses to follow-up e-mail questions, Oct. 12, 2004:

Q Do you believe the House leadership had the interests of the American people in mind when they put the Marriage Protection Amendment before the House for a vote last week? After all, a majority of Americans, including John Kerry and John Edwards, oppose broadening the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions.

Rep. Baldwin: Given the fact that the Republican House leadership knew they did not have the votes for passage and that the amendment had already been defeated in the Senate, and given the suspect timing of the vote, a scant five weeks before the election, it is clear that they had political motivations rather than the interests of the American people in mind.

Their actions are at odds with the proud history of our founders and those who have defended our Constitution over the past two centuries. We do not use that precious document to discriminate; we use it to expand rights and opportunities for the American people.

Q You successfully amended the farm bill but did not support the final version. How important is this issue in the 2nd District, and how do you defend your “no” vote?

Rep. Baldwin: I’m proud of the way I improved the farm bill to help my constituents. My dairy import assessment provision requires importers of dairy products to pay the same assessed fees as domestic producers, thereby paying their fair share of the industry’s promotional expenses. However, the overall bill disproportionately favors large-scale farms and commodities grown in the South and West, such as sugar and cotton, with massive subsidies. Overall, the farm bill is a loser for Wisconsin.