@Randy -- to be frank, as far as putting feet in mouth is concerned, your comments are a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Your comments show that you are not and have no intention of listening carefully to what Hovde is saying.

Considering the source, lolo, I'm blushing in shame.

Actually, if what was reported is right, and Mr. Hovde is in favor of reinstating Glass-Steagall, I might warm to him just a bit. But since he's never mentioned that in any of his personal blogs here . . .

You're voting for Baldwin.

... and you can vote for Tammy 'til you are blue (pun intended) in the face, but the Republicans will have two WI Senate seats for the first time in two generations. Common sense will take back our country step by step, I just pray its not too late.

Thanks, nuit. Glad to see its not just me that has noticed the big O speechifying incessantly for the past four years. You can't cook rice with talk .....

Fresh? Like advocating policies that we have been doing for the past 30 years which have driven this country in the ditch and has knocked it back in every world-wide ranking conceivable.

Tell us, what's fresh?

Huffington is a coward, as are all the liberal talking holes. They just throw false information at their masses, make them angry and want to protest while the "media" stare out atop their ivory tower watching their sheep do their bidding.

"Fresh" is when you want to counter disaster and not ignore it. Instead of hiding under a rock like democrats do when it comes to controlling spending, Hovde aims to take on this issue. I know Keith and his ilk don't care and may even want this country to end up like Greece or Spain, but the rest of us yearn for a brighter future. Your side keeps thinking this whole debt crisis is manufactured and a bunch of scare tactics, but you just might be able to witness its fruition if that hack president is re-elected.

Keith, the policies Hovde has pushed are not the last 30 years policies. All of which, btw, we're not bad. But those that led to the last two bubbles, he spoke against, AS AN INDUSTRY leader.

Did you know Hovde spoke out against the bank bailouts and stimulus in 2008 and 2009, even on CNBC? For an insider, he's strangly fighting against a golden parachute for his alleged buddies

@ schmitz -- like not spending more money than we have. That would be a fresh idea, and its not something we have seriously tried in the past several years, ceertianly not under the current democrat administration.

You're voting for Baldwin.

Lol, Lyle, dd you by chance say any of the same things about Johnson? ;)

@Edward Willing....Didn't pay any attention to Johnson. BTW, where have you been?

I don't care who wins the Republican primary, any of the four candidates will eat Tammy's lunch. There is no way her ideas will be palatable outside of Dane County.

You're voting for Baldwin.

Frankly I'm looking forward to seeing some new faces arise in the Democratic Party. I will vote for Baldwin for the same reason that I supported the recall efforts--our state is out of balance and Tea Party/GOP ignorance and disrespect for citizens and law is abhorrent to me. It's no longer a choice between one or two points left or right of center; it's one or two points left of center and ten steps to the right. This extremism is gaining a foothold because so many people still haven't figured out that the Republican Party has been hijacked by its fringe.

When I read about high unemployment, and knowing the reasons why companies aren't hiring, then listen to Tea/GOP bloviation about "job creators" needing the Bush tax cuts, the ridiculousness of the situation makes me put my head in my hands. How many times have we heard the underinformed parrot about "job creators," etc.? They swallow the b.s. hook, line, and sinker. Who among them stops to ask the obvious question, "Why arent the 'job creators' creating? We gave them massive tax breaks. Where are the jobs?"

Wisconsin, and America, will not thrive under the thrall of ignorance. So while I personally would prefer to see some fresh moderate faces, I will vote for Baldwin in the battle for political and intellectual balance.

But you're still voting for Baldwin.

Tea party folks are the only ones who DO respect the law, and individual citizens.

What a joke.

Bob, did I not say I would? But if Thompson wins, at least he is an old-guard conservative. He's not a liar. And he genuinely cares about most of Wisconsin (I personally think he'd be pleased if Milwaukee sank into the lake). If his victory didn't simply hand more power over to the extremist fringe I could accept his win.

Edward Willing, please explain how hiding ALEC union stripping into a budget repair bill, then suddenly tearing it out and voting on it in the middle of the night is "respecting the law." Or how trying to change DNR regulations and scientific terminology to allow mining in a region in which the geological composition is not fully understood is "respecting the law." Or how saying, for the record, that as governor you would negotiate with public employee unions and then turn around and ALEC union-strip them by legislating away their rights is "respecting the law." Or how choosing activism and re-arguing a state-level matter to roll back decades of campaign finance reform to favor one political party over another is "respecting the law." Etc., etc., etc.

Edward Willing, you and I clearly have very different definitions of "respecting the law." Sir, to save my life I would not accept yours.

Not the point, Bren. The point is your take on any Republican candidate is irrelevant. You're voting for Baldwin.

I don't believe my views on the candidates are irrelevant, Bob, that's why I vote. I would say again that the most tolerable GOP candidate to date is Thompson. If corporate purchasing power succeeds in turning the gullible against Baldwin as they did with Tom Barrett, I'd switch my focus to Thompson because he has a proven record of serving Wisconsin. Somehow I can't imagine him selling himself or our state to ALEC as Scott Walker has done.

Bren, you don't vote for Republicans. You're not going to vote for a Republican, regardless of who's running. For that reason, your views on Republican candidates are irrelevant.

"Corporate purchasing power" didn't turn people against Barrett. The recall effort failed because it wasn't seen as justified by the majority. Barrett didn't have a chance. If you honestly at this point can't see that, all the more reason for any viewpoint you have regarding candidates, elections and politics in general to be not only irrelevant, but suspect as well.

Bren the not democrat socialist liberal only votes for democrat socialist liberals. Any discussion about republican candidates during a primary is irrelevant.

Historically I vote Democrat or Libertarian. Once I voted for a compelling third-party candidate in a presidential election. While both traditional parties are deeply influenced by special interests (and I remember a time when wits nicknamed Joe Biden "D-MasterCard,") I tend to favor the party that best remembers why we actually have a government at all. That's to serve us, the people who pay for it. And we pay a lot more for it than many organizational entities (GE, Exxon, etc.). I want to know that if I or a loved one needs a social service that it's going to be there. I find the new Tea/GOP voices ignorant and cruel, and reject them. Libertarianism is more of an ideal than a practicality, but when both traditional candidates don't impress me I tend to lean Libertarian.

I also favor a national health plan because I lived for a time in a country that had one and it worked well. The profiteering problem was when the occasional doctor would see cash patients on the side using national health care facilities (there will always be a private component to healthcare--but they are supposed to set up their own office).

I honestly don't know if this makes me a social liberal. I do believe government should be there to serve American citizens (economic/national security, healthcare, education, law, infrastructure, etc.). Not to try to subjectively control people's bodies and dictate moral/religious behavior. And not to play favorites with special interests and earmarks.

Baldwin a new face?

I'd like to see Democrats with new faces. Anytime there is a reasonable democrat (one who agrees we should work within our budgetary limitations) the leftists in the party try to push them out. They did it to my friend Jeff Plale and they are trying to do it to Peggy Krusick. A couple of years ago I was visited at my home by a young twerp trying to unseat Peggy. I asked him if he was in favor of the high speed train--when he said yes, I told him that I would not be voting for him. That ended the interview.

@Bren -- I'd like to respond to your comments on why you are a liberal. "I do believe government should be there to serve American citizens (economic/national security, healthcare, education, law, infrastructure, etc.)." The problem with most of this is that someone has to pay for it. And that means that you and everyone else that wants these things to be provided are expecting to get a good deal--i.e. to pay less in taxes than it costs to provide the services. The people who have to pay are tired of paying so much, and tired of the corruption that makes it cost even more. If you were really a libertarian you'd be pushing for less government, not more of it. I spent time in the former Soviet Union, and saw how a country with a huge and all-powerful government could not even provide the people in a city of 1 million could not provide the people with a simple hardware store where they could buy the stuff they needed to fix up their apartments. And so what did people do? They stole what they needed from government work sites..

Actually, Gregory, it simply shows the others have nothing to say.

They suppose they have something itneresti or substantial to offer in a PRIMARY discussion about someone they wouldn't vote for anyway. ;)

Also, Gregory, the irony of your statement is amusing.

You apparently have nothing to say except claiming someone actually represented by the subject of this article has nothing to say. Touché

Ah...so this is why you never offer opinions about Democrats Bob? I understand your logic now.

When I do, Brian, I don't do it from the standpoint of pretending that I'm an independent who might have actually voted for them - if they just thought more like Republicans.

I offered comment on Baldwin's blog, I even linked it to this blog. There does not seem to be much conversation there.

@Edward Willing...What does his philanthropy have to do with his ability to govern?

Sharing one's blessings with others is God-pleasing. But if it is done hypocritically, for attention it does not evolve one's character. I hope that Hovde's generosity is done in good spirit.

I'm sorry to say that Scott Walker and the other new ALEC governors have set a terrible precedent of say-anything-to-get-elected-then-I'll-do-what-my-benefactors-want. For the present at least, I find it impossible to accept any promise or statement made by a Republican as genuine, only a ploy.

@Lyle..... What does the chopped up reporting on Hovde's very common sense, and totally accurate response have to do with his ability to govern?

@Bren -

Who are YOU to suddenly suppose, for obvious underlying purposes that there COULD be an ulterior motive behind his dedication of millions of dollars? Who the heck are YOU to dilute the defense of his character by saying you HOPE it was done in good spirit?

Wow. Speaking of " hypocritically"... I'd love to see every liberal out there put their own policies to that "good spirit" test. And the politicians themselves who scavenge on the false hopes of people who have been led to believe government is the answer.

@Edward Willing...The only thing Hovde has been talking about is national debt, where is he on the other issues? I have been all through his sites and can't find one position paper. Edward, Hovde is two dimensional and without government service experience, he isn't prepared for such high office. However, if you are a supporter, I'm not too worried about his chances of being successful, you don't seem to back winners.

Edward Willing, my opinions are simply that. Hovde's philanthropy is his personal choice and business. But since it is there for others to see I will share my hope for the true spirit of giving. No need to go all capital letters on me! ; )

@ lyle , Righto, there are other issues besides the national debt. But I think at this moment there is none that it is more important. The point about Hovde's philanthropy is that he is being defamed by the leftists as another heartless conservative, whereas in reality I see him as a new face with fresh ideas.

Why is she a breath of fresh air? Because she wants to spend more of your money! Of course the republicans don't do much about spending tons of money on holding people way too long on probation and conditional release! It's costing us a fortune and totally unnecessary. They probably each have four to five people assigned to each person. Ridiculous and sad. Life is too short. Let's get on with it. Forgiveness is the key to a happy life. This is God's rule, not man's.

FYI Just to clarify, I'm talking about republicans in Waukesha county in my post.

Here is Baldwin's blog: http://shorewood.patch.com/blog_posts/building-a-made-in-wisconsin-economy
I think Dirk is confusing fresh air with hot air.

@dork -- In the great Wisconsin tradition, a breath of fresh dairy aire!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@Bob - What is wrong with seasoned professionals? When you go to a doctor or lawyer, you want an unseasoned professional? Good luck with that. Sen. Ron Johnson, if anyone stll recognizes the name, is the ultimate unseasoned professional. He is a laughing stock in Washington, ineffective and trying to fire his own staff. .

Nothing, Dirk. However, generally their most notable attribute would not be that they're "a breath of fresh air". Then again, if that's all you've got to point to as regards Baldwin, I guess you run with it. Obviously it must be or you wouldn't have backtracked with your Ron Johnson reference. She won't be running against Johnson

@Bob - Baldwin is a breath of fresh air next to the Republican candidates and their macho view of future society based on extreme wealth and privilege, versus everyone else. In the Tea Party world, the greatly diminshed "middle class" will consist of those individuals who are strictly beholden to the wealthy for their very survival. Currently, the extremely wealthy can even buy States, as Wisconsin was sold in the last elections.

I find it ironic how, in the Republican model, of course mostly unstated except when a Hovde-type slip of the tougue occurs, the Tea Party commenters here will not be exempt from themselves slipping down into the morass of left-over humankind.
A breath of fresh air is a countervailing view to this harsh, uncaring world that Hovde and many others give us when the curtain allows a peek.

Dirk, doubling down on your dislike of Republicans isn't the equivalent of a glowing endorsement for Tammy Baldwin. You've had at least 2 opportunities here to get beyond her being a "breath of fresh air" and so far you're either unable or unwilling to do so. All that one can conclude from that is that you'd vote for virtually anyone with a (D) behind their name and, hence, your analysis of the Republican field is as irrelevant as that of the other Democrats weighing in on the topic.

@Bob McBride....I am very much concerned about the Republican field of candidates. I don't think that Baldwin has a "snow ball's chance in hell". Her sexual orientation and liberalism will not play well outside of Dane and Milwaukee Counties. I agree that Democrats will vote for her just because she isn't a Republican.

I plan on voting in the Republican primary and voting for Tommy. Of the Republican field he may be slightly right of center, but he is the only one qualified to hold the senate seat.

For Baldwin to win my vote she would have to bring something more to the table. Her tried and true message of the left doesn't resonate with the current electorate. If the Democrats wanted to keep the seat, then they would have put up someone who could appeal to the independent voters.

Lyle, whatever you do in the primary for whatever reason, ultimately you'll be voting for Baldwin in the election because she's the Democrat. If, as it appears, she's going to be the only Democratic candidate for the position then for all practical purposes she's already won your vote.

Think about it, Lyle. If the shoe was on the other foot, do you think Democrats would give a rat's you-know-what about a bunch of Republicans weighing in on the Democratic field of potential candidates? What is it about you guys that makes you think you hold any sway with Republicans who will be voting in the primary? Where does that come from? Do you think we look to you guys for your approval prior to casting our votes? Think we can't sort it out without your analysis?

@Bob McBride....Since it is likely the Republicans will win the seat, then those of us who aren't Democratic or Republican need to exercise a choice in the primary. I want to see a pull back from the extremes of the left and the right. Don't assume that I will be voting for Baldwin. Tommy has gotten my vote in the past.

I think it's a safe assumption, Lyle. You definitely lean to the left, the party that most closely supports your POV is the Democratic party and, in the grand scheme of things, you're going to do whatever you can to assure that, at the very least, they maintain that seat in Congress.

The vast majority of those voting in the primary will be Republicans, they're not going to be voting based on what a Democrat would prefer to see in office, however it most likely is going to be Tommy Thompson because, frankly, most Republicans don't fit the caricature your side has cultivated and do vote for who they perceive to be the most electable candidate. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't be talking about Mitt Romney at this point in time.

So in the event something more interesting than chatting up a couple poll workers comes up on primary day and you don't get in to cast your well-thought-out vote for Tommy, I don't think you'll have a lot to worry about.

However, if you insist on worrying, worry about the latest consequence of the much ballyhooed and celebrated "Arab Spring".

Baldwin will spend all her time pushing Gay rights, she needs a man! I could never vote for her unless she was in the WNBA or played on the LPGA and had some added entertainment value to her. She is just another Madison lefty!

@Bob - A literate commenter would recognize in my comments that Tammy Baldwin is a breath of fresh air in contrast to the tiresome "lower taxes on the rich", "cut middle class benefits", "increase military spending" cast of candidates the Republicans put forth.
And Bob, you are a pisher, presuming I always vote (D). I voted for Walker (R) when he first ran for County Executive, and even the nut Tom Reynolds (R-Outer Reaches) when he promised publicly to save the Milw. Co. Grounds then would not even answer my letters. And I have even voted (I) for President, Anderson and Perot.
I put much more into my decisions then just mindlessly going into the voting booth and voting straight (R) like the typical schmendrik on Patch.

Dirk now knows how everyone on Patch has voted. He's no schmendrik.

Dirk votes for breaths of fresh air, yet lists as past beneficiaries of his vote Tom Reynolds, John Anderson and Ross Perot. If anything, those 3 could have afforded to get a bit more fresh air.

You might actually be better off sticking to conventional wisdom rather than attempting to forage on your own for the same. You've picked some real doozies - although I will give you credit for not restricting yourself to Democratic doozies alone. Too bad there's not a Screw Loose Party. You'd be in hog heaven.

@Doug Toader -- The bigotry in your post was a little 'off'. You forgot to mention Birkenstocks. It's sad that in this day and age a person's private life should be used for a political attack. Besides, don't gay people need the same rights the rest of us do?

She did not mention any of her social agenda in her blog, but i think Doug's "Baldwin will spend all her time pushing Gay rights" comment may be right on the money. I think the country has bigger fish to fry.

@Bob - First you accused me of always voting the straight (D) ticket. And you were wrong. Then you criticized me for voting for certain Republicans. At least I showed I am an independent thinker and voter, unlike Republican putzes like you that vote straight ticket, You need to open your armor helmet slit a little wider and view the world with a bit more perspective. And pretty sure you never got a chance to vote for Anderson or Perot, as you probably were not even born then, since you play video games all the time. Sen. Tom Reynolds was a Republican darling, a precusor to the Tea Party. You may be too young to have even voted for him, or you will say you lived in another district.
By the way, I am voting for Hovde in the Republican primary. That would make the regular election a much closer race.

@Dirk Gutzmiller...If you are accusing Bob McBride of being a young whipper snapper, I hate to disappoint you. Bob is a solid baby boomer. If you haven't been following him, he is our Patch Community resident cynic and is filled with sarcasm. I have found him to be a stay as you go kind of guy. You can't always take him serious, sometimes he just likes to play with people, like a cat with a mouse.

@Lyle - Thanks for the info about Bob. He does an excellent job of appearing online as much less mature.Taking it as well as dishing it out is not his forte. He was undoubtedly a rabid Nixon fan then, as Lyndon LaRouche did not appear as a Presidential candidate until 1976. Really surprised he is apparently a fan of NAFTA, as he does not regard Perot highly. He is persistent, if not a good debater.

Dirk, stick to boycotting TP. Your analytic skills are sorely lacking.

Also, admitting you voted for Tom Reynolds without first stating that you'd spent the day pounding brown mumblers at Club 113 and voted as you did on a dare really makes me question not only your ability to chose a candidate, but to concoct a plausible excuse for having made such a boneheaded move in the event you did enter the booth sober and intentionally vote for that fruitcake.

I vote for people who have a chance of winning. Voting for Perot or Anderson was the equivalent of tossing up your hands and admitting you can't make a logical decision regarding the two (and there are ALWAYS only two) viable candidates in a final election. So much for putting a lot into your voting decision. When in doubt, punt.

And as for this...

"By the way, I am voting for Hovde in the Republican primary. That would make the regular election a much closer race."

For someone who defiantly (apparently) votes for folks he knows won't win, I wouldn't expect anything else.

BTW, were Hovde to actually win (instead of Thompson) the primary, the spread would be larger, not smaller. You apparently have less confidence in your breath of fresh air than I do. Then again, if you thought she might win you'd probably be voting for her opponent or some third party no-show.

@Bob - Gee Bob, it must really stick in your craw that tens of thousands of people in Wisconsin are quietly boycotting Koch products. Maybe Walker will push for a law that makes that illegal, but it is happeningInow
As I recall, Tom Reynolds got elected the first time he ran by idiotic Republican voters, not my measly independent vote. I voted (D) when he ran again, of course, as he became the typical Tea Party nut, and, as happens today with Tea Party types, did not follow through on his public promises. Of course, your outrageous falsehoods about drinking in one of those bars where you are a resident habitue the day I voted for Reynolds are false and libelous. What is a brown mumbler? But you just lost control of your senses when you said those atrocious lies.
I vote my conscience in general elections, and not necessarily for whom I think might win. It sends a message. Just like the perennial candidate Ron Paul is trying to influence the Republican Party in spite of being a loser. You should try it, there are many Christian/Fascist/Reactionary parties out there for you to vote for, or you could simply write in your own name instead.

"What is a brown mumbler?"

*****************

Where do you look when someone uses a term that confuses you, Dirk....

@Greg and doug toader...What makes either of you think that she will focus all of her efforts on gay rights? She hasn't made any secret of her sexual orientation, but I can't see that as a congressional representative that she has strictly focused on gay rights. What makes you think that if she wins the senate seat that there would be any significant change.
@toader...She needs a man! What kind of troglodyte are you anyway?

She has fought for the LBGT agenda before and seeing how it is a hot button issue, I think she will be all over it. I will retract support of the "all her time" portion of the comment, but I think it will be a key item for her.

Concealed Carry is a Freudian insecurity? Really? I think your rash is affecting your brain. It may be due to their close proximity. Where did I ever say that I am really opposed to the LBGT agenda? I think your zealous defense of the LBGT agenda may be the real Freudian insecurity.

Greg - You jumped right into the LBGT discussion, getting toady about Toader's crass anti-gay comments.