Don’t let the media and Democrats gaslight voters into thinking the guy (Tom Tiffany) who DOESN’T want to abolish police is the crazy one. I mean, c’mon.
When I was a kid, they had this game called barrel of monkeys. You dumped the plastic monkeys into a plastic monkey pile, and they attached to each other’s curved arms, creating a long string of monkeys. So it is with the media right now. They’re piling on Tom Tiffany. He’s on the bottom of a bunch of plastic monkeys and trying to surface. It’s been that kind of a week. Luckily, there are many more weeks until November, but I’m not going to give you BS.
It’s interesting how media pile ons work. It’s like one reporter jumps first and then they smell blood in the water and then the next jumps and the next, until the reporters are all linked together in a plastic chain asking the same sh*t from five different microscopically different angles.
This phenomenon tends to be directed at Republicans. And now there’s also a media pile on Francesca Hong, since establishment Democrats don’t want her to be their nominee.
It’s not that the questions they pummeled Tom Tiffany with this week aren’t fair questions per se. And it’s also not like he handled them all well because I don’t think he did (but the glass of whole milk at the Wispolitics luncheon was a nice touch). The same is true of Hong.
Heck, WRN had already raised the same concerns about Hong that CNN, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and other legacy outlets are acting like they suddenly discovered.
Namely that she wants to abolish police and was endorsed by a socialist group for her consistent alignment with the cause of prison abolition. We reported those things because the public has a right to know that the Democrat frontrunner is a doppelgänger for Patty Hearst. Think of the iconic photo with the beret and you’ll see what I mean. It’s a revolutionary kind of thing. And, yes, I know she was abducted. It’s just the image.
So what’s the problem? The problem is that the legacy media aren’t subjecting other candidates to similar aggressive lines of questioning. They easily could, but they’re not. They are singling Tiffany and Hong out, which, taken together, adds up to an aggressive effort to hurt Tiffany in November, since Hong is the candidate he has the best chance of defeating. As an aside, that means crafty Republicans might want to cross over and vote for Hong in the Democrat primary to help Tiffany since Tiffany doesn’t have a real primary – unless they have a vigorous GOP primary going on for something else, like the 7th congressional district race.
The Questions They Won’t Ask
But what questions could the media ask the other candidates?
Just to prove the point, here are some questions that the media could ask but aren’t:
Mandela Barnes recently posted that he’s been on Snap and BadgerCare. Suggested questions: How recently? When?
Also: Does he regret lying about getting a college degree? How about his incendiary anti-police rhetoric before the Kenosha riots? Does he want ICE abolished? If not, what role should they play? Would he continue Evers’ commutation scheme as governor, allowing homicide offenders and cop k*llers to qualify? Does he regret the paroles of brutal k*llers by the administration he served as lieutenant governor? Why hasn’t Evers endorsed his former #2? Does he still support driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants? What time frames has he lacked one himself? And so on. There’s so much more.
How about Sara Rodriguez? Suggested questions: Why hasn’t Tony Evers endorsed you? You’re his lieutenant governor…Why the bad blood between you? What role should ICE play in Wisconsin? Do you want them abolished? Why don’t you believe jails should honor detainers on violent criminals? Not even homicide defendants or women be*ters? And since you opened the door and claimed ICE targeted you and your family, and posted a weird rant about a reporter’s question about your husband’s immigration status…when and how did he come to this country? Was he ever in this country illegally? Did he ever overstay a visa? And if so, what did you know? She opened the door. I don’t know the answer. I just think the media should ask it. Also: Would you continue Evers’ commutation scheme, including for homicide offenders?
For Kelda Roys: You’re the WEAC supported candidate. Why did you vote against giving public schools more special education funding? Don’t they need help now? If you’re so concerned about the structural deficit all of a sudden, why did you support a larger one from Evers? We could go on. And on. And on.
And since we’re on the topic of Hong, it’s probably fair to ask her whether she’s still on lithium or other psychotropic meds. Don’t jump all over me in an enraged frenzy and accuse me of stigmatizing the mentally ill for bringing this up. I’m not. I’m glad she got help. But she’s running for governor.
She’s openly and recently discussed her past with that on the record (the article was called “Soup Lefty”… get it?), including time spent in a psychiatric facility and an overdose on lithium after a bipolar disease diagnosis. Yes, she was 18. And she says it was a child psychiatric facility. She is 37 today. Glad she made it through it. But voters have a right to know whether it’s still relevant in the present. Not saying it is. Saying they have a right to have the question asked. I 100% guarantee you if that was in Tom Tiffany’s past, they’d ask it.
The Invisible Man
But the reporters are acting like Barnes doesn’t exist. He’s become the Invisible Man, navigating through the gubernatorial primary minefield without being seen. The media are playing David Copperfield and they’ve made Rodriguez disappear too. Somewhere on the edges, David Crowley is frantically waving his hands like a guy who didn’t get picked in kickball. “I’m over here! Pick me!” No one cares.
It’s not just Democrat gubernatorial candidates.
The frenzied media are so desperate to blame Tom Tiffany for the failed surplus deal that they have completely let Democrat Senate minority leader Dianne Hesselbein off the hook, even when she posted a groveling walk back of any hint of Evers criticism. The translation of it was, “Sh*t, maybe Evers won’t campaign for our candidates now. So even though I screwed his legacy completely over, maybe he will cool down if I remind everyone that I actually like him.” Too little, too late. That’s like the school bully stealing a weaker kid’s lunchbox and then saying, “we all can have our differences. I really like the guy. So let’s just move on.”
Hesselbein is the person in the state most responsible for the surplus failing. She held her caucus firmly united against it. She stole Evers’ legacy lunch box.
Back to Tiffany. I’m trying to figure out what’s going on here, and I’ve decided it’s one of two things.
Either:
1) His campaign is being run by a bunch of young DC and Wisconsin conservative campaign bros who are clueless about the state media, or
2) They get what they’re doing, and it’s purposeful.
Which might be the same point.
Let’s unpack. Tiffany stepped in media bear trap after media bear trap this week. Let’s stipulate. The media are obsessed with the 2020 election. It’s their goal in life to trap every conservative candidate into sounding like an election denier. The goal is to make conservative candidates look crazy. They’re 2020 election bunny boilers. This is easy to dispense with, though. Here’s how:
Hypothetical Mary Spicuzza question: Was the 2020 election stolen?
Tom Tiffany suggested response: Biden won the 2020 election. I’m focused on 2026 and improving folks’ lives.
Molly Beck hypothetical: But you opposed certifying the 2020 election results in two states.
Tom Tiffany suggested response: Biden won the 2020 election. I’m focused on 2026 and improving folks’ lives.
AG candidate Eric Toney has flatly said Biden won. If you can’t do that, in real life, they will eat you alive with it. Tiffany gave a bunch of careful talk, saying, “On January 6 of 2021, it was decided by the Congress that Joe Biden had won the presidency, and he became the president for the next four years, and I accepted that. I referred to him as President Biden.” The media turned this into Tiffany refusing to say Biden won. This was predictable (see fable: the scorpion and the frog).
Real headline in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: “Tiffany backs FBI probe into 2020 vote, won’t say whether Biden won.” Real left-wing headline, “Tom Tiffany Called Jan. 6 Rioters ‘Victims.'” Sigh.
Needless to say, that headline plays with about 10% of the electorate that is still looking for the kraken and enjoys getting Hot Government dispatches. If that.
As for that probe, just say, “I’m focused on state issues. Go ask the feds. I’m not privy to their investigation.”
But do you back it? “I’m focused on state issues,” etc.
You get the idea.
Then came the January 6 question, the media Ahab’s second great and related whale. Asked about Trump’s weaponization fund, Tiffany gave a lengthy recitation of nuances that basically amounted to, yeah, maybe it should happen depending on the harm except for people who attacked cops. Which the media turned into Tiffany being open to the idea.
Real Journal Sentinel headline: “Tom Tiffany says Jan. 6 defendants ‘possibly’ are owed restitution.”
A Media Crash Course
Crash course on media 101: If you give them a long winded nuanced statement, they will cherry pick out whatever line they can twist to make you look terrible.
My suggested response: “Bad idea.”
Hypothetical Molly Beck question: “So do you oppose the weaponization fund or not?”
Proposed Tiffany response: “Opposed. Bad idea. By the way, let’s talk about my affordability agenda.”
If a candidate does not flatly get rid of this line of favorite media questioning, they’ve got you. They’ve got the caricature, and it’s all they will talk about and they will flog you with it until the end of time. Then you’re not talking about what you want to talk about. Such as his common sense fiscal policies.
To be clear, Tom Tiffany wins if he is not talking about the 2020 election and weaponization funds and January 6. He just doesn’t. This is a purple state, and NewsMax watchers are not the majority. Sorry. They’re just not. Either get your boot stuck in the bear trap or don’t, up to you, but if you want to win. I wouldn’t advise it. There isn’t much room for error here, not in this cycle.
Conservatives can rail at the media all day and night for asking these questions. But the fact is, it’s about as predictable as predicting wild-eyed Sarah Godlewski’s next video will be weird. The fact is, candidates need teams that prepare them for such questions because there’s a way to get rid of them so they don’t divert the campaign into 2020 election Candyland Bog, ie the Molasses Swamp. We’re not Alabama. Or the 7th congressional district.
So what gives? Did the campaign bros just get this wrong? Part of the problem is that they seem to be running Tiffany to the far right, as if he’s running in the 7th congressional district, not statewide. What’s the point in not having a primary if you’re running as if you have one? Let the Democrats chase each other off the leftwing cliff. The problem with most campaign bros is they’re political operatives, sometimes from out of state, who’ve never worked in the media and who, if they understand it at all, only get conservative media and see legacy media as the enemy. (Tim Michels had a strategy, at least for a time, of just never talking to liberal media. His consultant was from Tennessee. How did that work out? I knew it was going to be a problem when we met the guy for lunch and he didn’t seem to get why wanting to keep WEC was going to be a problem in a GOP primary.)
But what do I know? I’ve just been working in, and teaching, the media for 30 years. I’ve worked in legacy AND conservative media, fairly uniquely, in this state. But I’m just in the cheap seats eating popcorn here. So take it or leave it.
There are a couple exceptions (Alec Zimmerman, Rachel Reisner, Ben Voelkel, and Brian Reisinger come to mind as folks who are good at the media stuff.) It’s not an all-inclusive list. There are others. Courtney Gustafson also did a good job back in the day.
But activists don’t always get the media. Especially when their butts are sitting in DC. And in a purple state you have to deal with the legacy press even as they wane in power. Heck, folks don’t even have an effective strategy of dealing with conservative media. It’s hit or miss.
There’s another possibility. Which is that the campaign bros purposely suggested Tiffany take these positions because they think it’s a winning strategy. And of course the buck stops with the candidate.
Of course, some might argue he’s just saying what he believes.
The thought process goes, we have to get those phantom Trump voters to turn out! As in, those Trump voters who vote only for him and then sit on their as*es while the left takes over the Supreme Court and gears up to destroy the state and everything you hold dear. The problem with this theory is that I don’t think some Crawford County Trump only voting logger is going to be moved to vote for Tom Tiffany because he gave a nuanced answer about the weaponization fund to Wispolitics. Campaigns should absolutely try to reach those voters, and more will turn out in November than April, but not in a way that will alienate everyone else.
Tiffany should absolutely run as who he is – a strong conservative, but emphasize and define the race around the places where most voters align with conservative views. Namely fiscal policy and public safety. He also needs a strong message on education. Most people don’t want boys in girls sports. That’s a crossover issue too.
Also, please tell Tom to smile more when the cameras are on him. At least don’t scowl.
There was also his doubling down on the surplus stuff, but I’m sick of that topic. That horse has left the barn. He wants to give it ALL back to taxpayers, which is fine with me. The conservative MacIver Institute, though, needs to read the room. They suddenly handed a lifeline to Democrats who were trashing the surplus, and taking on water, and that was bizarre. There came the MacIver rowboat with buckets to bail out the Democrat boats. Then they raised doubts about the poll showing people wanted the property tax relief. Nah. People just wanted the property tax relief. It really is that simple.
The surplus maneuvering by Tiffany appears to have derived from a campaign bro strategy of running against the Madison swamp since the left is going to try to falsely paint him as being part of the DC swamp. The problem with this messaging is that Republicans control the legislature, which is based in Madison. So it’s not really the swamp; that’s located in DC (or on road trips sponsored by Boeing.)
And it’s not helpful to the Republican guys trying to keep control of the Assembly to be falsely painted as the Madison swamp. I mean, c’mon.
The Legislative Bros Get It
I wouldn’t have him run against his fellow Republicans in Madison or against Evers, the current guy in charge there and who is, like it or not, very popular with voters (if he wasn’t, he wouldn’t keep getting elected. And that Marquette poll showed 80% if voters agreed with him on the surplus.) That’s why Republican state Sen. Howard Marklein is actually sending out direct mail touting his positive bipartisan relationship with… Evers. The Legislative Bros get it.
No, I would have Tiffany run firmly against his own opponents, you know the clowns in the actual Democrat gubernatorial clown car.
They aren’t your father’s Democrat Party anymore. That was kind of Evers (at least voters think so; in reality, Robin Vos prevented the guy from becoming Tim Walz by blocking his worst excesses).
Nope, these leftists are something new altogether and if they get their hands on your state, you won’t recognize it anymore. Heck, Craig Gilbert backed this up in one of his exhaustive analyses.. Wisconsin Democrats have gotten 10% more very liberal. And all of their candidates except Missy Hughes, who won’t win, are complete nut jobs. That’s only slight hyperbole.
Look, if I were running Tiffany’s comms (which I have no interest in doing, so, no this is not an audition), I would run him as the normie trying to stop the revolutionary nut jobs who want to tear up the fabric of Wisconsin. Heck, the Democrat frontrunner wants to abolish prisons, police, and, since she has declared herself an anticapitalist, apparently she wants to get rid of that too.
Do you?
Well, no one over 35 does.
All he has to do is be the normal guy. Because he actually is. Democrats aren’t your father’s Democrats anymore but Tiffany is your father’s Republican. A gentleman with common sense who gets fiscal sanity. He is his own man. He’s not Washington; he’s Elmwood.
The left and media want to turn Tiffany into a mean grouch telling those young whippersnappers to “get off his lawn” while covering his windows with tin foil. In real life, he’s not that guy. He’s a little awkward in person, but he’s a decent man, and he’s just not that guy. So don’t give them ammo to falsely paint him as such.
To win, he needs to run as the steady rudder. The state dad you’d want to drive the pontoon boat and balance the family checkbook because he’s got a lot of common sense. The calm dad who ran a tour boat company and who was so beloved that years later folks remember him calling to the wolves (and being answered by them). They remember his detailed knowledge of the state and kind, calm, common sense demeanor as he drove that boat, through a beautiful tranquil northern flowage. True story. I have the receipts.
Don’t let the media and Dems gaslight voters into thinking the guy (Tiffany) who DOESN’T want to abolish police is the crazy one.
I mean, c’mon.
That’s the real Tiffany frankly, the nice boat-driving version, but which version ends up most embedded in the voters’ psyches will probably dictate the race. We can see which version the legacy media are invested in.
Don’t give them it.
Table of Contents
