Terrance Wall wants to be the Rushlican candidate to run against Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) this year, has a problem. Who is Terrance Wall? Exactly.
You might think that an unknown candidate would start by telling us who he is, what he’s done with his life that’s mattered, what separates him from the others in the Republican primary and what he’d like to accomplish as a senator. It’s what a prudent person would do, but not Terry. Instead, Terry makes his first impression with a TV ad that ignores his principles, his vision, his goals, his primary opponent, his background, his qualifications, his identity and his obscurity. Instead, Terry attacked Senator Feingold.
Not to worry, Terry’s blustery beginning reveals a lot about him.
First, it reveals that Terry doesn’t know what the word “listening” means. Terry shows us a woman at one of Sentaor Feingold’s many home state listening sessions, expressing her concern and confusion about health care reform. From this scene, Terry asserts that the senator isn’t listening. Except, Terry’s own ad contradicts his asserton: The ad shows us Senator Feingold listening — as he has in more than 1,200 sessions, more than any other senator. In any state. Ever.
The tactic of trying to rewrite history, to assert up is down, has been used in politics so much its now a cliche. Claiming that listening is not listening, however, is pretty far to reach. Only the most radical on the fringes, Left or Right, will fail to see the goofiness.
Listening means hearing and understanding, not agreeing. During those 1,200-plus listening sessions that annually take place in every Wisconsin county — and through countless email messages, letters, phone calls, meetings and conservations — Senator Feingold has listened to at least tens of thousands of us speak our minds on hundreds of thousands of opinions. It would be mathematically impossible, not to mention illogical, for him to agree with all of us, especially in an independent-minded state like Wisconsin.
So the second thing Terry’s ad reveals is that he doesn’t know what a senator is supposed to do. A senator must make informed decisions based on consistent principles and in accordance with known values, trying to achieve what’s best for the state and nation. However much we may disagree with some of Senator Feingold’s positions on this or that issue, only the most radical on our fringe can believe he has failed to be informed, principled and industrious.
The third thing Terry’s ad reveals is that he’s not been following the health care reform debate very closely. The ad says that he’ll stand up to “Washington insiders” to stop “government takeover of health care.” If he’d been paying attention at all, he’d know that it’s the Washington insiders who are, so far, killing health care reform. And they’re doing it on behalf of the entrenched power and wealth of the health insurance industry. As the very conservative Washington Post reported last summer, Big Insurance and Big Pharma were spending $1.4 million per day to defeat health care reform.
Those who are demanding reform — the millions of Americans who are denied insurance, who are dumped when they get sick, who cannot afford insurance, whose employersand small businessesare being soaked by skyrocketing premiums, increasingdeductibles and shrinking coverage (while insurers post huge profits), and who see their fellow Americans die for lack of insurance at a rate of 123 per day — these are not “Washington insiders.”
If Terry had been paying attention, he’d also know that health care reform is actually the opposite of a “government takeover of health care.” The truth is, reform that slows the rate of growth in health care spending and would reduce the government’s investment in the system. If Congress doesn’t do anything to reduce health care costs, by 2020, about one in five dollarsspent in the U.S. will go to health care, a proportion far beyond any other industrialized nation. For the first time, government programs next year will account for more than half of all U.S. health-care spending.”
The health care bill would actually: reduce the deficit by $138 over 10 years; allow private insurers to compete in a new regulated environment; set ground rules for coverage; even the playing field, forcing insurers to compete on quality of care rather than risk selection; and hinder the insurers ability to use the patchwork of state regulations to game the system to their advantage.
The bill wouldn’t have the government, or anyone else, take anything over or “run” insurers, much less health care. It’s a moderate approach that actually incorporates many Republican ideas.
(Elsewhere, Terry has insisted that the current health care system is not broken, demonstrating, again, that he's not paying attention and -- more importantly -- that he's completely of touch with how we non-millionaires must live.)
Another example of Terry’s use of the ol’ attack-their-strength tactic is his claim he’ll be a “new kind of leader” who will stand up to “Washington insiders.” The single most defining characteristic of Senator Feingold has been his independence from “insiders” and his willingess to stand alone on principle despite insider pressure and persuasion, even when it’s plainly contrary to his political interests. To name only a few: he prohibited his staff from allowing lobbyists to pay for lunch, or even from taking refreshments at Capitol Hill receptions; he has relentlessly pursued campaign finance reform hated by incumbents in both parties; he pushed a bill through Cogress that sets a $50 limit on gifts to Senators; in his 1988 campaign, he refused soft money and refused ads from the Democratic National Committee (ripping into Dem leaders in the process); he was the only Democrat to vote against dismissing the impeachment charges against Bill Clinton; he was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act; he was the only sponsor of a measure to censor George Bush when the president was caught breaking the law; he’s an unshakable supporter of Second Amendment rights; he was the only senator who refused to pledge blind loyalty to limitless presidential power; he voted against Bush’s $700 billion Big Bank bailout; he was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act; he was the only Dem to vote in favor of confirming John Ashcroft to Bush’s cabinet; and
on principle, he’s refused to sign a letter demdanding adoption of the Public Option by reconciliation and calls to change the Senate’s rules on filibuster. Regardless of whether we disagree with each stand taken, the inescapable fact is that Senator Feingold is extraordinary in the depth of his courage to stand on principle against the “insiders.”
(Elsewhere, Terry revealed that his lack of attention to what’s going on in the group to which he wishes to be elected is quite alarming: He charged Senator Feingold of taking marching orders from Nancy Pelosi, the Dem leader in the House. If you’re running for the Senate, you should at least know who is running the place.)
The other defining characteristic of Senator Feingold has been his frugality. The guy is tight with a dollar — so tight he’s been repeatedly honored by the non-partisan Concord Coalition, named the top “Taxpayer Guardian” in the Senate by Taxpayers for Common Sense, and even recognized by the pro-Republican Club for Growth. In addition to fighting earmarks and leading on campaign finance reform, he’s advocated ending automatic cost of living allowances for Congressmen and instituting pay-as you-go rules that require the government to actually fund the things on which it creates.
Terry, by the way, prefers to let you pay more to run the government. As a multi-millionaire, he not only enjoys paying a much smaller percentage in federal income tax than you do, but he’s gamed the system to avoid paying legitimate property taxesand seems to have set up a dummy address outisde Wisconsin that allowed him to pay zero state income taxesfor 12 of the past 15 years. These stories, combined with his utter lack of policy depth and community service, may be why Terry prefers not to tell us about himself.
There is a reason Senator Feingold was rewarded by the most votes in Wisconsin history last time he ran: The people of Wisconsin — the regular folks, not the radical fringe — are hungry for leaders who are outside of and immune to the entire, broken, soulless D.C./corporate corruption machinery, and we’re excited that we have a senator who meets that need. We’re even more excited that we have a senator who has a record going on two decades of meeting that need. Anyone seeking to unseat Senator Feingold will have to convince us, by deed as well as word, that he or she can do better.
Terry’s first shot failed. He’s a featherweight wannabe who has compared himself to a heavyweight champ, and it’s not a pretty sight. Why would he do such a thing? Why lead with an ad that’s so far removed from fact and prudence?
Terry’s ad feels askew because it’s not aimed at regular folks in Wisconsin, it’s aimed at the far-right fringe of the Republican party. The fringe of any party is usually it’s most active part, the most likely to vote in a primary election, so Terry is appealing to radicals.
Terry’s ad has certainly left a fist impression, but it’s not a good one. It’s the impression of one who is ignorant, unqualified, irresponsible and, perhaps, less than honest.