Letter submitted to the Post-Crescent April 12, 2011:
John Hyland never ceases to amaze me with his narrow view of the world, always seeing it in his static monochrome while everyone else knows the world keeps spinning.
Hyland would call me as much liberal as he is conservative. Though, to him, even moderates are liberal, so that does not mean much. And his view of “conservative” makes that term completely meaningless. We differ in two other key ways: one of us is non-partisan and principled and the other is a knee-jerk reactionary.
I will not hesitate to accept Hyland’s “facts” that unions and other interest groups poured money in to the spring campaigns and that this was a key reason that Kloppenburg, previously unknown, received as many votes as she did. Many worked hard to tie the anchor of Scott Walker around Prosser’s neck. I disagree with him about Jack Voight, however, as Tom Nelson has consistently had broad public appeal and I very much doubt funding was a factor in that race. This is evidenced by Nelson’s win in districts where Kloppenburg lost.
Would Hyland accept, conversely, that Walker, Ribble, Johnson and others were pushed into office by a flood of money, dirty campaign ads and slanderous billboards? I suspect not. To him, Republican money and dirty tricks are okay, but Democratic money and dirty tricks are verboten. Never mind the issues that are at stake, affecting millions of Wisconsinites.
I care about political ideas, not political parties. And I believe in serving the people, not buying your way into office. Hyland laments that the Democrats outspent the Republicans. I lament that money, rather than issues, remain the primary factor in elections today.