|
Chvala Website
|
. |
|
|
September 20, 2002
CONFIDENT CHVALA PREDICTS BIG DEM YEAR
A WisPolitics.com
Exclusive Interview
by Jeff Mayers
|
Chuck
Chvala
|
Love him or hate him, insiders are fascinated with Chuck Chvala. He's a politician who seemingly thrives on controversy and criticism. And despite losing big to Tommy Thompson in the 1994 gubernatorial race, the Madison Democrat has become the most powerful Democrat in the statehouse, building a Senate majority amid public dissension from several Democratic senators.
The Senate majority leader this summer was a central figure in the Democratic primary for governor. Jim Doyle, the winner, said he'd work to bounce Chvala and Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen out of their leadership positions because of a bad budget and the caucus investigations. Chvala, a supporter of Milwaukee Congressman Tom Barrett, was behind the challenge that led to Gary George's departure from the Democratic primary ballot and may have contributed to Doyle's good showing with African-Americans in Milwaukee. And his caucus has been the subject of an investigation into alleged illegal politicking at the Capitol.
Some politicians would run and hide after that kind of bad publicity. Not Chvala. He appears confident, almost buoyant about the coming elections. He's quickly saying nice things about Doyle, predicting a good working relationship. And he's predicting a larger Senate majority for Democrats -- which some critics say he'll need to hold onto his leadership post.
He avoids talking about the investigation, and if he's bothered by the ongoing probe, he's not showing it.And that has many lobbyists -- Republicans and Democrats -- agreeing with his election analysis and preparing for another legislative session dealing with Chvala.
WisPolitics Editor Jeff Mayers interviewed Chvala on Sept. 23. This is the first in a series of interviews with legislative leaders about the fall races.
Mayers: So, looking at the landscape ahead here, you had some good news last
week (with the primary defeat of GOP moderate Peggy Rosenzweig).
Chvala: Yeah, I think that now we can say with confidence that Senate Democrats
will be at either 19 or 20 after the fall elections. I've been pretty much
right on my predictions for the elections for the last three cycles and
special elections that I've talked about. I said last time that we would
be at 18 or 19, and we're at 18. People didn't believe that we would knock
off Gary Drzewiecki but we did.
In this election, here's the way we see it. To be honest with you, the
majority is not really in play. The Republicans like to talk a game about
Rod Moen and Kim Plache -- they really don't have any basis for doing so and
I expect those races will be off the table before October 1st. Kim Plache
and Rod Moen are running strong, neither one of them had any serious
competition last time. Kim Plache got 55 percent of the vote, and we expect
she's going to do even better than that in this election because she'll be
more focused. By the way, her opponent, Cathy Stepp is quickly becoming, and
in very short order will be, the Nancy Mistele of this election --
Mayers: That's quite a handle to hang on her
Chvala: And it's so true, it's more true by the day. I just saw her come out
in the press last week and say that Kim Plache did not understand business
because she wanted to pay workers before banks when companies go under. I
think that the person who has a problem with understanding is Cathy Stepp,
doesn't understand real families have their lives dependent upon these
checks and banks are enormously profitable these days, even in difficult
times. I think Cathy Stepp is the one who's out of step. And I think that
the more important thing is that the people in her district see her as out
of step, and that's just one of many issues, one that she just brought up
recently upon herself.
Mayers: So you don't think Kim Plache is vulnerable?
Chvala: No. And, the other thing is Kim is just doing very well herself,
doing better than she's ever done. She's working very hard and she's much
more popular in that district, because she's worked very hard for that
district. She's done things like the .... crime issue down there and
bringing in economic development issues for Racine, so she's just done an
excellent job of developing a record that people can look at and say good
things. I think Kim herself is just a much more comfortable and confident
candidate and person. She's got this wonderful young Eve, the child that she
adopted. Kim and Paul, her husband, I think just are an excellent team and I
think that it's a great situation for Kim.
The fact is that we're really dealing with how big a majority Senate
Democrats will have. I think the Senate usually resolves to three races. The
three races we think that will be out there this year that are going to be
very competitive and very good are the Jim Baumgart race, -- and Leibham -- we
recognize it's a competitive race but we're going to win that race, I can
give you some background on that. The Christenson race, where, you know,
this is a tremendous opportunity -- we will now win that seat. ...
Mayers: You will now win that seat?
Chvala: Yes.
Mayers: It's a Republican seat.
Chvala: Their analysis would say marginally Republican. Our analysis shows,
on a regression analysis, 50.4 percent -- not 54 percent, but 50-point-4
percent -- Democratic in an open seat. But it's going to be far better than
that in this circumstance. What a terrible thing to happen to Republicans to
have a guy who describes himself as a radical conservative win over a
moderate Republican, Peggy Rosenzweig. We would've had a tough argument, but
we would have still been in there and been competitive with an outstanding
candidate, George Christenson.
But now, having Tom Reynolds, who is, not only by his own description but by his own record, a radical conservative, I don't think you can see suburban women, suburban men who want a moderate society voting for someone who is as extreme as Tom Reynolds is. I think that you're going to see that George Christenson really fits the district.
He's run there before, head of a non-profit organization. We're very
fortunate to have such a good candidate in George Christenson. He on his own
should win the district, but running against a guy like Reynolds now, he
will be in great shape. But, don't believe me, Jeff. You know, some would
say, "Well, that's just Chvala spin." What you should do is take the spin of
the Republicans. Let me just quote to you from the letter that was sent out
by (GOP Sens.) Bob Welch and Ted Kanavas: "For him to win, hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be spent in Sheboygan and Racine would have to be poured
into Milwaukee just to possibly hold a Republican seat." That's what they
say about the seat. They know that this guy is going to get beat. These are
some of the best minds in the Republican caucus and even they're saying that
this guy is going to lose. People who want to listen to (Senate Minority Leader) Mary Panzer's spin -- I'm going to be speaking to a group of lobbyists fairly soon.
They've heard her spin for three separate cycles, about how Republicans are
going to take back the majority. I think it's going to wear thin, especially
when one of her very own, not only a Republican, but someone who supports
her for leader in her party (loses in the primary). When she can't even keep one of her own in in a Republican primary. How can anybody believe that she's going to win in
November? She told these lobbyists, point-blank, that Peggy Rosenzweig would
win. She lost by 8 percent, it wasn't even that close. I don't see how Mary
Panzer really has credibility to say that. But, you know--
Mayers: Do you buy the Barrett-turnout argument?
Chvala: What was the Barrett-turnout argument?
Mayers: That Peggy lost because people in her district had to decide to vote
for her or Tom Barrett, so they chose to go in the Dem primary and vote for
Barrett instead of her.
Chvala: I think there's an element of that, but that just shows you even
more why these people, when given a choice between a moderate -- like a Tom
Barrett or a Peggy Rosenzweig or George Christenson -- will go that route as
opposed to Reynolds. And frankly a lot of people have made that argument and
I think it's an argument that only helps us and I think there is some truth
to it. I think it was a variety of things, but the fact is, in a Republican
primary the base that's going to stay Republican are the right-wingers and
that's what he got and that's why it's going to be devastating for him in
the general.
We also have, in addition to that race, we have the race
against (Dave) Zien. Again, Republicans don't believe that we'll win that. They
didn't believe we'd beat Drzewiecki. Exactly the same dynamics working there
with Zien versus Dave Hansen. Except one very significant advantage here
that we didn't have with the Gary Drzewiecki seat and that is, this is the
most Democratic seat held by Republicans. We have five or six Democrats who
have less Democratic seats than this. The generic ballot test, which is
always a good barometer of the playing field that you're working on, the
generic ballot test in that district is 43-31 Dem. I don't have that hardly.
You'd have to get to Fred Risser's district or some really good districts
out there to get that kind of generic ballot test. And I'll tell you what,
once we educate the voters about Dave Zien, I think that we're going to win
that one as well. I think that we're in a very good position to go to 20,
but will, at a minimum, go to 19.
Mayers: On the Dave Zien one, Zien's a different kind of politician than
Drzewiecki though. He's been described as kind of a folk hero up there. He's
a different kind of guy to take down, isn't he?
Chvala: There are a couple of things that are different about that. For one
thing, the story is wearing thin. We're hearing people saying he's not
around as much. We're hearing more people say that there's no
follow-through. Dave is the kind of guy who talks a good line. When you meet
him and you talk to him, he's energetic. Who can be against that? But when
you don't see any performance for a long time it's very difficult and he has
a real issue in terms of performance. And not only that, but just the
overall playing field we're working on again. People don't feel as good
about where the state's at, and he's more vulnerable in that sense. There's
one other big, overriding thing though that I think people have not focused
on enough for legislative races, and that is, there's going to be, I think,
100,000 fewer Republicans turning out at the polls this fall, and probably ...
Mayers: 100,000?
Chvala: Across the state. And I think there's going to be 50,000 more
Democrats turning out. Democrats are energized, and Republicans are not. If
that is true, if there's a 150,000-vote swing, in an Assembly district
that's 1,500 votes, in a Senate district that's 4,500 votes. That swings
almost any competitive election. That would have meant we would have had
Alice Clausing back (in the current Harsdorf seat). It would have meant blowout races in some of these other areas. Remember, we've had Tommy Thompson on the ballot here, for the gubernatorial cycle, for the last 16 years. People haven't seen an election
without Tommy Thompson on the gubernatorial side of the ballot since 1982,
that's 20 years ago.
The fact of the matter is, this is going to be a big year for Democrats.
It's going to be a breakout year. In fact, if Assembly Democrats are able to
get adequate financing -- and I think that's a critical thing -- if they can
get adequate financing with the number of open seats they have, they should
be able to pick up a significant number of seats. Now, I'm not saying
they'll pick up the majority, but I think if they're able to get the
financing, you're going to be amazed. How many Assembly district races are
always within a thousand or 1,500 votes? It's a lot. And frankly, the margins
I'm talking about, where Republicans will not turn out, that will
disproportionately be in competitive districts around the state. I don't
think people are focused on that, but I think everyone knows that it's true.
There's going to be a much lower level of turnout for Scott McCallum this
year than there was for Tommy Thompson in the past. Tommy Thompson squeezed
the bottle so that every drop of Republican support was out there. Scott
McCallum will be lucky if he can get half the bottle out into the election.
And on the Democratic side, Democrats have not had a competitive
gubernatorial race -- except for that great candidate in 1994 ...
Mayers: (laughing) Yeah, what was that guy's name?
Chvala: (laughs) You know Democrats are going to be out in droves. They feel
it, they want it. The thing is, you know, people love to support a winner.
When they know that Democrats are going to win, they want to be there so
that they can say they were part of it. And Republicans, on the other hand,
are going to want to say, "Well, I wasn't there for it." So, I think that
there's a dramatic change in the playing field here, and I think that's going
to dramatically help us. Remember, we have done remarkably well in these
off-years. In 1994, which was the bottom for everybody (on the Dem side), that year we did not lose a single Democratic incumbent. And Republicans are saying they're going
to beat Rod Moen this year? And Kim Plache this year? I don't think so. I
think what's going to happen is you're going to see a breakthrough year for
Democrats, not just with the Senate, where we've got great opportunities and
where we've proven that we get the job done -- and I think that's something
for people to consider as well: who's proven that they can get the job
done? Beyond that you're going to see a breakout year because this is
going to be a very Democratic year.
Mayers: OK, what are the odds that you're going to take down Zien?
Chvala: Fifty-fifty.
Mayers: Is this candidate better than your other candidates you've had up
there?
Chvala: Oh, by a long shot. Because (Earl Larson's) resume is so good. He's a teacher,
he's a high school football coach who brought his team to the state
championship and won the state championship. He's in the Wisconsin Coaches
Hall of Fame. He's a guy who's a responsible citizen. He's exactly the
contrast that you want to Dave Zien, a can-do guy and a have-done guy. He
has a record to point to, Dave Zien does not. I'd say, to be honest with
you, given the nature of the year, it's more than 50 percent that we'll take
him out. ...We could or we could not win that district. I
think it's more likely that we'll win it than we won't, but I don't want to
over-promise, and I never have. If you look back at the predictions I've
made on where the Senate would be, we have always been in the range I've
talked about. Let's take the last go-round: I said 18 or 19, we were at 18.
This time I'm saying 19 or 20.
Mayers: Let's talk about Baumgart then. He appears to be your most
vulnerable person out there. Why is he vulnerable?
Chvala: Well, he's really not vulnerable. The problem is they've got a
sitting Republican rep (Joe Leibham) to run against him. And whenever you have that, you have to pay attention and you have to recognize that that's a substantial
challenge. By getting him into the race, I think that the Republicans have
put that (Assembly) seat in play. But, you know, what people have not looked at, is
when you look at the dynamics of what happens internally in that district,
where does it go? Republicans are spinning a line that that race is over and
for a while I really couldn't say anything because I didn't have any
information. I now have information that I can look at and make an
intelligent statement about where that district is at. Jim Baumgart is ahead
43-40 and Republicans are saying somehow people were pushed before that
happened -- not true. By the way, at the time that poll was taken, which was
very recently, Jim Baumgart was outspent by his opponent about seven-to-one.
Jim had spent almost nothing, his opponent had spent fifty-some thousand. In
spite of that, Jim Baumgart is still significantly ahead. But I think the
most important thing to know about that district is that I understand that
when you're given fair descriptions of both Baumgart and Leibham, without
pushing them one way or the other, you know, you push them both positively
and negatively for Baumgart and positively and negatively for Leibham, the
bottom line is it goes to 54 Baumgart, 35 Leibham. That tells me something
which I instinctually felt was the case in that district and that is this:
Joe Leibham is known as a pretty face. He is not known as much more than
that. Once they find out about Leibham's record, they find that he is not
far from the extremism of Tom Reynolds. That does not sell in that district.
Mayers: Wait a minute now, because people will wonder about that one. You
say Leibham's record is that close to Reynolds?
Chvala: Leibham's record is extremely conservative, extremely conservative.
And I think at the end of the day that will be what will swing that
district.
Mayers: OK, the Republican spin on that is, look, this is one of the most
pro-life districts in the state. Leibham's pro-life.
Chvala: So is Jim Baumgart, but Joe Leibham has no rape, no incest
exceptions on abortion. And even pro-life voters, particularly the voters
who will make the difference in that district, they do not support
extremism, where you say a 13-year-old girl, who's had incest committed on
her by her father, has to take a pregnancy to term. Even pro-life people do
not find that to be within the mainstream of values that they hold.
Mayers: If you had to pick an issue would abortion turn that race?
Chvala: No, no. But I think it's simply emblematic of where Joe Leibham is
as a candidate.
Mayers: So you would say the issue is extremism?
Chvala: I don't know that at the end of the day that's the way it's
portrayed. But I think the fact that he is extreme in a number of his views
on the issues will ultimately carry the day. But voters don't vote, I don't
think, by and large on a tag. They vote on issues. They really are much more
sophisticated than a lot of people give them credit for. And when they hear
about Joe Leibham's record, they're going to, in their own mind they will
draw the conclusion after hearing about the record that he's extreme.
Mayers: Isn't there a budget issue? Leibham was against the budget, Baumgart was for it. So Baumgart was for SeniorCare, for all those things that helped put the budget together.
Chvala: Yes.
Mayers: Is that a part of the debate, or not?
Chvala: I think that there will be a number of things that will be a part of
the debate, and I'm sure Republicans will have their take on that and
Democrats will have their take. I think at the end of the day, it's really
going to be ... the positive ratings for Joe
Leibham are related to, he's a very nice guy, a very handsome guy, a great
smile and a great and large family. All of those things work tremendously to
a person's advantage when they've never had a race. And that's the other
thing that people don't understand about Joe Leibham: he's never really
had a serious race to run, because Assembly Democrats have never had the
resources to really run a serious race against him. The fact is that that
will not happen this time. People will know about Joe Leibham, they'll know
his record and when they know his record, it'll kind of be, "Looks good,
votes bad."
Mayers: So does (Terry) Van Akkeren win?
Chvala: Yes, and handily.
Mayers: Is this a pocketbook election?
Chvala: Pocketbook issues will certainly be important, but when you have a
pocketbook election, it's also about, "Who's standing up for us?" In a time
when times are difficult, one of the reasons that historically Democrats
have done well in difficult times -- going all the way back to Franklin
Roosevelt -- is that people have faith that Democrats will make sure that
their parents, for example senior citizens, will not fall through the
cracks; that you as a worker, if you're going to be unemployed, there will
be some safety net there to catch you; that, you know, Democrats are going
to do what they can to help out with jobs, but jobs that will help out the
average working person. So I think at the end of the day, when it's a
pocketbook issue, frankly, Democrats do better in tough times. When times
are good, Republicans are more able to spin the story that, "Well
everybody's doing well, and you're doing well, and what we really need to do
here is just cut your taxes and give you an opportunity to be a
millionaire." That is not the full story, but that's kind of the direction
that they want people to think. In tough times, people are saying, "Gee,
how's my brother John doing over there? Who's going to help him out?" The
Democrats. "My parents, or my wife's parents, or my sister's parents, golly
they've got a tough time. You know, my dad's got $300 in prescription drug
costs. Who's going to help out on that?" Well, Democrats will help out on
that. In tough times, people look for security, they look for ways for their
family to be protected, and one of the things they're going to want is to
look to Democrats to make sure that's happening. And they also know that
Democrats are very much oriented to making sure there are working-class
jobs, middle-class jobs available for people and they know that Democrats
are going to fight for those jobs.
Mayers: What election year would you compare this one to? If there's a year
in Wisconsin that would seem to parallel this one in some respect?
Chvala: I think it's very hard to find a really good comparison. You might
want to say it would compare -- if you want to look historically, you have to
look at a gubernatorial year, because gubernatorial years are very different
than presidential years. So if you really wanted to compare this, this would
be a 1982, which was the first time that Tony Earl ran. You had an open
seat, both sides. You've kind of got that, McCallum hasn't run, if anything,
it's even better for Democrats this year. In fact, it actually is
significantly better for Democrats this year, and frankly Governor McCallum
looks somewhat like Terry Kohler (who lost to Earl) in his ability to reach out to people. That being said, I think that if you look at what happened in 1982, it was a
landslide year for Democrats. I recall -- it was the first year I was
elected to the Senate -- Jeannette Bell, Bob Jauch, quite a few people,
....
But if you look at it, Democrats in the Assembly I think had 57 or 58 votes in the Assembly. And that's the thing, you know, as you go down the ballot, the top-of-the-ticket action has more affect the farther down you go, believe it or not, because people will independently vote for an attorney general or for a congressman or
congresswoman, or even a state senator to some extent. When you get down to
Assembly races, oftentimes people are going into that voting booth and it's
really kind of their overall feeling about how the top of the ticket is. And
this is going to be a great Democratic year, and that is going to help the
Assembly Democrats again. Again, I would say, if they're able to put their
financial house in order for the elections, they have an opportunity here
for significant pick-ups. I was thinking maybe they could pick up two
seats -- in spite of redistricting, which puts them down a little bit from where they are
-- I thought they could pick up a couple. If things break
right for them, if they can get their financial act together, they could
pick up four seats.
Mayers: Why isn't their financial act together? Because you keep saying it,
and it's obvious they don't have a lot of money on hand.
Chvala: I think they're still working on it, and they're still finding a way
to get that done. I hope and expect that they will before November, in fact,
I'm quite confident they will. I see indications that they will.
Mayers: Your spokesman said the other day, you support the ticket, you
support the Democratic ticket.
Chvala: Yes, I'll pull the lever for Jim Doyle and Barbara Lawton.
Mayers: OK, I think a lot of people had to hear that coming from you. There
seems to be this feud between you and Jim Doyle. What are people to make of
that, if they're not part of the insider crowd?
Chvala: Democrats have always fought like cats and dogs, but we always
understand there's a more important issue and that's the November election.
The values that we hold as Democrats need to be advanced, and I think that
Jim understands that, Barb understands that, I understand that. And I think
that at the end of the day you'll see those values prevail, and I think
that's a good thing. Jim Doyle's going to be a very strong candidate against
Scott McCallum. I think he's going to be one of the reasons that Assembly
Democrats will do well, and that we may be at 20 instead of 19. I think that
that's the difference.
Mayers: Democrats are closing ranks, the unions are going to come on board,
everybody's going to come on board?
Chvala: You know, I'm not sure. There may be a couple of holdouts on that.
There might be a couple of holdouts. But you know what? At the end of the
day there's going to be overwhelming support for this ticket. Let's look at
that and talk about it. Frankly, after this election, within a few days of
this election, you're going to be talking to Republican analysts who are
going to say, "Jeff, I knew in April the McCallum ticket was going down."
Remember what they said in April? "There's still a long time to go." Then
what did they tell you in June? In June they said there's going to be this
vicious Democratic primary that's going to knock the Democrats -- that
didn't happen. What argument do they have left, Jeff? There is no argument
left. It's all over. And everybody knows it's all over. Frankly, the
Republicans have been told, on the legislative side, "Distance yourself from
McCallum to have any hope of being able to survive." You know, this is going
to be a great year for Democrats, but you don't want to get too enthusiastic
before the election happens because there's a lot of work to be done. And
that work must be done in order for it to work.
But let's just look at this for a moment. Scott McCallum's at the top of the
ticket versus Jim Doyle. We know the Republicans are not going to turn out
for McCallum. Let's look down the ticket then. Well, the problem is there's
no U.S. Senate race to bring out Republicans to vote. There is not a single
competitive congressional race in this state to bring out anybody, so that's
not it. Are they going to turn out for Vince Biskupic? Is that the
Republican hope? That's their prayer, that people will be really excited
about their candidate for attorney general.
Boy oh boy, I don't think that's going to happen. I mean Peg Lautenschlager's a great person, but I don't see Lautenschlager as the name that's going to motivate people for November any more than Biskupic. So what you're talking about now is Republicans having to motivate people to vote based on legislative races. Jeff, this is not
going to happen. This is going to be a Democratic year in a big way. And
I'll tell you what: When lobbyists start calling me about the fall elections
and wanting to help out, that's the point where you know it's really going
to be on your side, and that's where we're at right now. In the past it was
like pulling teeth; this year it's like taking candy from a baby. The fact
is that they just can't wait to get on board because they know that the
train is leaving the station. In fact, it's going about 20 miles per hour
right now, and they're running to catch up. I mean, it was bad enough that
they had Doyle-McCallum at the top of the ticket, but when Peggy Rosenzweig
went down, Mary Panzer's credibility went right out the window.
Should I state it in stronger terms?
Mayers: No, no. I think I understand. OK, now this is an insider question.
Let's say it happens: Doyle is governor-elect, you're the Senate majority
leader. How are you two going to work together?
Chvala: Oh, you know, Tommy Thompson ran against Chuck Chvala, and Chuck
Chvala ran against Tommy Thompson and we managed to work together. ...I've got
a picture in my office of when I was out visiting Tommy Thompson and
actually I've enjoyed the relationship with Tommy since then. The fact is
that we're both adults, and more importantly, we're both Democrats. The fact
is Jim Doyle will be the governor of this state and as governor he's going
to get 90 percent of what he wants and that's the way it is and that's the
way it should be, and frankly he'll have a mandate to do that after beating
Scott McCallum. People will be surprised. I'm always amazed at the
predictions of some people who think they have the insight versus what
happens after the fact. The predictions that we would never be able to hold
on to the majority, the fact that we would have no message, etcetera. All of
that has not been true. We've had a message, we've held on to the majority,
we've built a majority, in spite of a very big Republican landslide over the
years for Tommy Thompson. The fact is, with Jim Doyle, we'll do very well
with him. In fact, I think it's going to be a surprising change in the view
that many people will have of Chuck Chvala because I have had to be the one
person holding back.
Mayers: I always described you as the goalie for Democrats.
Chvala: That's right. And holding back both a Republican governor and an
Assembly headed by Republicans. Now I'm going to have someone that on 95
percent of the issues, we're going to be on the same page. You're going to
be surprised at how much we're working together and how effectively that
relationship will evolve. But, you know, in the meantime, everybody likes to
run against Chuck Chvala, and why shouldn't a Democrat?
Mayers: You've been made an issue in many elections. Does it matter?
Chvala: It's never worked in the past, and it won't work now. Voters, again,
are more sophisticated than that. They understand legislators have their own
particular viewpoint, and they will bring that viewpoint to Madison. It
doesn't matter who the leader is because at the end of the day they want
someone who is going to look out for their interests... Earl Larson and
George Christenson, the two new candidates out there; those guys are very
independent folks. Jim Baumgart has always been very independent.
Mayers: Does he ever show up at caucuses?
Chvala: (laughs) He does, except when we have a closed one. We've had only
one closed caucus in two years, and we only had one the two years before
that, and I'm trying to get it to the point where we have no closed
caucuses -- that's something that's never been written about, all the closed
caucuses that the other side has. But Jim is an extremely, an
extraordinarily independent guy. We can't even get him to take conduit
money, he's such a "clean Gene." But, you know, these are independent people
and they'll go their own way and that's the way it should be.
Again it gets back to Democrats. We are less a party that is able to point at a person and say, "You are the one." For example, look at our primary -- you've got three
candidates in there, every one of them great, but there were enormous
numbers of people with enormous power on the Democratic side trying to get
one or another of those people out to make it a one-shot race. Nobody could
do it. Democrats are much more independent, and have always been, just as my
caucus has been, and we air our dirty linen in public. I think most of the
insiders around the Capitol know that the Republican caucus in the Senate is
far more divided than we are in our caucus. And yet, we continually have
public displays of disagreement, and they keep theirs quiet. That doesn't
mean that our disputes are as significant as theirs, it simply means that
we're Democrats, we air it all in public.
Mayers: OK, I have to ask this question for Republicans. I have to mention
three names: Kevin Shibilski, Gary George and Jon Erpenbach. So those are just sort of superficial disagreements?
Chvala: Obviously, I've had concerns about Gary, but that's gone back a long
time. Gary George did not vote with us on the organizational side a while
back, tried to give the majority to Republicans. So, that's been a
long-standing issue, and that's unfortunately hurt him in our caucus. But
with the other folks, you know, we've had disagreements on little items, but
essentially, again, it's the same core Democratic message. Ninety-five
percent of the time we're going to agree. Once in a blue moon, we're going
to have disagreements, but being Democrats, we do it very vociferously and
there's nothing wrong with that. I think that I would rather be in a party
that supports debate and discussion than one that silences it.
You know, people have said about my relationship with (GOP Assembly Speaker Scott) Jensen, or they could say about my relationship with Democrats, "Why don't you guys just all go in the same direction and get along and pass something?" And I said, "You know, they had a system like that and it worked really well. It was the Soviet Union. They'd bring in the five-year plan and they'd have like 300 deputies sitting
out there and they'd say, 'All in favor of the five-year plan, raise your
hand.'" And everybody would raise their hand. Maybe there'd be a couple who
didn't, but the couple who didn't did not come back to cast the vote the
next time. Let's face it, the essence of democracy, the essence of a
republic is to have debate, discussion and disagreement. If we didn't have
disagreement, we would all be marching down the same road, and you know
what? It would be the wrong road.
If there's one thing with Tommy Thompson leaving -- and looking back on his era there are a variety of things people will have a chance to talk about, and his legacy -- one of the difficulties about having a person for 16 years is that he had a certain set of views
that never had an opportunity for someone else to take a look at. And one of
the problems is he continuously, until the very end of his administration
when he finally figured it out, he supported an awful lot of low-wage job
strategies for Wisconsin. It's really hurt us. Over the last 10 years we've
lost ground instead of gained ground, relative to our average income versus
the rest of the country. And Scott McCallum is now saying we've got to boost
that, and he's absolutely right; he doesn't have the right strategies to do
it, but he's right about the issue. That problem was because Tommy Thompson
was around too long, and he was pursuing a 1980s economic strategy instead of
the future. Now, to his credit, near the end of his career, he understood
that the university, stem cell research, high-paying jobs was where we had
to be, but for almost his entire career, he supported a low-wage job
strategy, which is a shame for this state. So, debate, democracy -- saying
that one person will decide for a lengthy period of time, and only that
person, is not a good thing -- so having debate and discussion with my
members is not a bad thing at all. I've certainly recognized that I have
flaws and I would be receptive to listening to what other people have to
say. I have learned some things from that discussion and I think it's a
healthy thing.
Mayers: Any regrets on the whole Gary George thing? It became the soap opera of the summer, but I don't know if it mattered (much). ....
Chvala: I don't think it made much of a difference, but the only regret that
I have, that I felt that I couldn't go out publicly, immediately myself
because of a partisan Elections Board. An eight-member board with four of
them appointed by Republicans, I was afraid, and I know, that any majority
vote could have been stopped by four Republicans. In that environment I did
not want it to turn into a personality dispute; I wanted it to be decided on
the merits. And as soon as those merits were decided by the board and the
reconsiderations were going through the court system, I came forward and
(admitted) my involvement.
I don't think anyone who really was on the inside or who was looking at this
seriously had any doubt -- from the very opening I made no comments ....
I did not deny my involvement, I simply said, "No comment," whereas Tom (Barrett) honestly and effectively said he had nothing to do with it. And in fact, I'm sure Tom would have preferred that I not do this; it was not what he wanted. I don't know, I didn't talk to him, but I'm sure that was his view. It was clear that I was -- I think for most people, they were saying, "Yes, Chuck Chvala was the person who was involved in this." And I wanted to take responsibility for it. I just didn't feel that I could
do that with a Republican board. I wish I could have done that from the
start, which I would have been perfectly happy to do because my feelings on
that are quite strong, and I think they were proven correct. A person was
denied ballot standing because somewhere, somehow, fraudulent signatures
were obtained to get him on the ballot.
Mayers: The core issue for you is, he didn't have the signatures.
Chvala: Well that was one element. The second element was, I had heard that
this had happened before. There were rumors that this had happened before
with Senator George, and I felt that that needed to be brought up. I also
think that the key element for most people in the case -- and it wasn't just
myself who felt strongly about this issue -- was the hypocrisy of Senator
George running as a reform candidate when this, and other actions on his
part had been taken. By the way, remember that I didn't just challenge this.
At the same time, I also brought forward, when I came out publicly and
talked about this, I referred to the Ethics Board and the district attorney
other issues which had been brought up about behavior on the part of Senator
George, using his Capitol staff for campaigning and for other issues.
Mayers: Whatever happened to those?
Chvala: I hope that it's being investigated. I don't know what the status of
those matters are, but I assume they're being investigated. Those are
serious matters of misconduct.
Mayers: We talked about the atmosphere surrounding this election. There
appear to be some wildcards. There's been a lot written about a scandal atmosphere in Wisconsin. Do you think that that's going to play at all in these elections? You've had McCallum cleaning out the barn and all that kind of stuff. Does that affect the elections?
Chvala: I think at the end of the day, what people want to know is, "How are
you going to have a positive impact on my life?" It's a matter of what
people sit down at the kitchen table and talk about. I think they care
about, as you said, their pocketbook. They care about how their family is
going to take care of their health care needs. They wonder about taxes, they
wonder about prescription drugs for their parents, they wonder about the
education of their children. It may also, at some point, revolve (around)
environmental issues, quality of life issues. These are the things that
people care about. By and large, people look at politics and politicians
overall, and it's generally not a very favorable impression. However, when
people are asked about the person who represents them, they have a much more
favorable impression, and that's because they tend to vote in people that
they believe will do the best job for them helping on these issues, and I
think that those are the issues that are going to decide the election. I
think that if people see someone who is too focused on these other
extraneous issues, or what's happening in Madison, the response of voters is
going to be, "Why are you so worried about that and not worried about me?
What are you going to do for us? What are you going to do for your
constituents? Let's see what you have to say about issues that affect me and
my life, that affect my family -- my children and their education, my
parents and their prescription drugs, my wife and myself about how much
health care is going to cost, the taxes that I'm going to have to pay, the
property taxes that I'm going to have to pay, and is that lake that we take
our children to always going to be clean and fresh and good or is that
something that we have to be worried about?" Those are the kinds of things
that people care about, those are the kinds of things that will decide this
election.
The WisPolitics Interview is Copyright © 2002 WisPolitics Publishing
|
|
