Shelly Moore Challenges Sheila Harsdorf to Debates

Democratic challenger says voters "deserve to hear an honest discussion of the important issues facing our state." Incumbent state senator's campaign spokesman says "we look forward to full set of debates."

On Monday, Democratic state senate candidate Shelly Moore challenged Wisconsin state Sen. Sheila Harsdorf to at least three debates before July's recall election. A spokesman for Harsdorf's campaign said "we look forward to a full set of debates."

Moore said the following in a press statement released on Monday:

"After months of closed-door meetings and an utter lack of transparency, the people of western Wisconsin deserve to hear an honest discussion of the important issues facing our state."

"By standing side-by-side and sharing our visions for the future, the people will see who will fight for education, seniors and the middle class, and who is eager to continue giving millions of dollars in tax breaks to big corporations."

Friends of Sheila Harsdorf campaign spokesman Nathan Duerkop responded to the statement with a reminder that Harsdorf is busy at work in the state capitol, and that Moore plans to increase taxes and spending. 

"While Harsdorf is doing her job to balance the state budget, she is more than happy to talk to voters about Moore’s tax-and-spend plans," Duerkop said. "Residents of the 10th Senate District will be alarmed at how Moore is in league with Madison unions and how much it will cost taxpayers if elected, to say nothing about the debt she would pass onto our kids. Sheila is hard at work fixing budget messes, but we look forward to a full set of debates."

There's no word yet on when and where the debates will take place.

Thurston Howell III May 26, 2011 at 04:30 PM
This just in: Republicans violated open meetings law: Go here: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/26/6722983-breaking-judge-strikes-wisconsin-union-stripping-law Look for sentance that begins. "Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi ruled Thursday" Then to sentacne that begins. "The State Supreme Court will hold arguments on June 6..... " Alright now I can make my point after you decipher all that. Prosser is going to reverse this. How much easier this would be if I could paste 2 full sentances from the articl here. But we don't want to violate copyright laws do we? Happy, I've seen the way you look at my gal Ginger. Knock it off;-)
Thurston Howell III May 26, 2011 at 04:38 PM
Happy, Could you craft a sentence or 2 that explains to GW that his boy Scott Walker is the CEO of the government he's so eager to get rid of. Thanks, I know you better at that kind of thing than I am.
Happy Badger May 26, 2011 at 05:43 PM
Well, GW, any bit of reasoning taken to the extreme ("all the land...") is usually absurd. The world just isn't as black and white as those on both ends of the political spectrum wish. On the far left: "all profits are evil." On the far right: "All taxes are evil." Both are, in most cases, HOGWASH, if I may borrow the phrase. The fact is that some publicly owned property does exist in our state. When we decide through elected representatives to build, say, utility plants to fuel our college campuses, then the governor shouldn't have the sole authority to sell them off on his own, without legislative oversight and without bidding the property out on the free market. That's just wrong, but it's one glaring example of what Scott Walker proposed in his budget repair bill. This is one time Senator Harsdorf--acting on our behalf--should have shouted, "wait a minute!!" I believe the old Sheila Harsdorf that we elected would have done that. The real world exists in shades of gray, requiring some independent thinking and some open-minded judgment. No convenient "ists" and "isms" will change the complexity of these issues. I realize that facts are frustrating to the folks on both ends of the spectrum, but they're real and need to be faced without the comfort of a pat, rigid idology. If Gov. Walker is the CEO, then he needs to realize that we are the stockholders. I think we deserve a voice in what he does with our property and how he treats the hired help.
Micheal Foley May 26, 2011 at 05:47 PM
You're making it more complicated than it should be. This is all you have to do: Looks like the Republicans did, in fact break open-meeting laws: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/26/6722983-breaking-judge-strikes-wisconsin-union-stripping-law The article says the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hold arguments on June 6. I'll bet Prosser reverses the decision. See how easy that is. I didn't copy/paste anything except for the link.
mainstreet May 26, 2011 at 06:46 PM
William, Sorry but I am not shoveling a "tired and unsupported party line." Like yourself I am registered "I" and always have been. I was looking for additional info on the bill itself , not the history of municipal water system failures. While it is hard to argue the merits of not chlorinating it is also hard for to accept government mandating what needs be done. These communities do not want the mandate. Their customers do not want it. What needs to be done are cost/benefit analysis in each case and then proceed prudently from there as opposed to mandates. Personally I prefer my "dirty" untreated well water to any city water. That's why I haul jugs of it to my work place, so I don't have to drink chlorine. Also I believe your point of systems that currently chlorinate suddenly ceasing to chlorinate is absurd. Chlorine is cheap. The costs of the delivery systems is the main issue. To quit chlorinating after doing so would be (cont)
mainstreet May 26, 2011 at 06:48 PM
negligent in my opinion. Sorry not a water treatment specialist as your self, just a simple retired ChE.
mainstreet May 26, 2011 at 06:58 PM
Happy, The key word is proposed. Nothing has been finalized. While getting rid of the power plants without bidding them is wrong, I do believe the state would benefit from their disposal. What business does the state have in power plant operation? Think of all the employee costs (present and future) getting off the public payroll. The properties become tax producing now instead of tax exempt. They would now be run by people who actually know how to run the plants efficiently and for profit. Their employees would become actual tax payers instead recycling tax dollars. In the power plant example I see a win/win, assuming they get put up for bid.
Thurston Howell III May 26, 2011 at 07:49 PM
Mike, This does not point to the details in the article which are most germane and which I wanted to address. I'm sure many here are not going to give leftwinger Madow much credibility at all. My point is that since Prosser has been elected to the WI Supreme court ( again ) this lower court ruling is most like going to be overturned.
Micheal Foley May 26, 2011 at 07:52 PM
You don't need to copy/paste text to get that message across to people. Use your own words.
Thurston Howell III May 26, 2011 at 07:52 PM
Thanks Happy :-) But I'll submit, this is far to logical and reasonable for some on the Right to concede that you are correct.
Jim Kubiak May 27, 2011 at 08:25 AM
The entire analogy of Walker being the CEO is improper. CEO's of corporations are in charge of their operations without answering to anyone, but perhaps their Board of Directors. They are, by definition, autocrats with line authority of everyone else in the organization. They sit at the top of the org chart. Governors are not "CEO's" They are in charge of the Executive Branch and must operate with the Legislative branch of the state government. Get it right, people. It is a "false analogy" to portray governors as a CEO. That is what Authoritarians like Scott Walker want to become, but it is not the way our state and federal governments were constructed. There is a form of government where most (or all) authority is vested in a single individual. Those leaders in those forms of government are referred to in varying terms: Monarch (king or queen), Dictator, and Ruler for Life, etc. So, putting that aside, blindly passing laws that give the Governor increasing authority to make unilateral decisions is constitutionally incorrect. Each time a decision making process is given to the governor and given away by the Legislative Branch, the form of government creeps towards a non-representative form of government.
Jim Kubiak May 27, 2011 at 08:31 AM
Eventually over a ten year plus period of time the power plant would start to have "outages" as the lack of maintenance took effect. At about this time, the original purchaser of the plant would start looking around for a buyer to unload the plant. After all, it's starting to need a lot of costly work to keep it going and he has pretty much drained it dry of cash. Time for the second "owner" to step in with promises to "fix the problems". What happens next, you may ask. The second owner will likely declare bankruptcy for the operation of that particular plant which was likely owned by an offshore company in the Cayman Islands. At that point, the sadly neglected power plant will have to be picked up by the State because it needs the power. Then us, the taxpayers will pay for bringing the plant back up to standards. The "Free Market" system in action. The Looters win again.
Thurston Howell III May 27, 2011 at 08:58 AM
"You don't need to copy/paste text to get that message across to people. Use your own words." My words are a reaction to the words of others. If people hear don't know what I'm reacting to, "my words" are without context and therefore rendered irrelevant. This is why scholarly papers have footnotes. Seriously, Do you think you'd get sued for quoting on or two sentences? I very highly doubt it. There is probably no judge in the land who would not rule that this is "Faire Use". I'd like to hear Brenda's opinion on this as she was an instructor of jounalism at the higher education level.
Thurston Howell III May 27, 2011 at 09:09 AM
Jim, Thanks for the clarification on the CEO analogy. I think you better define "Looters" as you see them. To GW and his crowd Teachers and other Gov. employees are the "looters". Perhaps a better term might be "raiders" as in the corporate raiders of very solvant corporations who raid thier assets for personal gain. E.G. Carl Icahn who is responsible for the demise of TWA. http://www.technicoblog.com/wp-content/images/icahn
Micheal Foley May 27, 2011 at 11:14 AM
Hey Jim. I had to remove one of your comments because it had profanity. Please feel free to repost the comment sans the four-letter words.
patt colten May 27, 2011 at 04:29 PM
Thanks for your response Micheal. Now... I am wondering if either of you contacted Shelly before setting up a debate with you being the moderator? Just wondering... I didn't see any mention by you of contact with Shelly. It would seem that setting up a debate with a moderator chosen would take input and mutual agreement from both parties..... seems a little like putting the cart before the horse if neither one of you have spoken with Shelly first.
mainstreet May 27, 2011 at 04:33 PM
Sorry Jim but I really see your scenario as being highly unlikely. All power plants need outages every few years. It is during the said outages that maintenance and government required inspections are performed because they can't be performed while the plant is running. No one is going to invest in a money making property and allow it to fall into disrepair. Especially a utility where you are pretty much guaranteed to make money. If at some point in time the facility needs to be shutdown because its life expectancy has been reached or maybe its technology is antiquated, so be it. The plants are on the grid and they will simply buy the needed power off of the grid. The state doesn't "need" power. Its always available.
Micheal Foley May 27, 2011 at 05:16 PM
I wanted to put Patch in the position to host a debate, so I've been having those conversations with both campaigns. A representative from Moore's campaign said that Shelly would debate Sheila "anytime, anywhere." So, I contacted the Harsdorf campaign to let them know I was interested in hosting the debate. Obviously, there are still a lot of details to be worked out. Don't worry. We'll keep you all posted.
Jim Kubiak May 28, 2011 at 12:01 AM
Main, I agree that is what happens if the power plants were to be purchased by an IOU (Investor Owned Utility) with which I am quite familiar. I am assuming that it would be some organization that was in the deal strictly to make a quick buck, not to actually operate a power plant as a long term business. They would buy the power plant in a "no bid" situation for a firesale price. They would then operate the plant with only the minimal and required maintence. They would likely "flip" the plant after a few years when it has been rapidly depreciated for tax purposes. The second owner would operate the plant into the ground and then abandon it in bankruptcy proceedings of some kind. These "Looters" are like THIII mentioned with Carl Ichan. These folks take over an operation, strip it of its cash and assets and then sell of what is left. Flown on TWA lately? It's what Ichan did with that airline.
patt colten May 28, 2011 at 03:50 AM
i'd like to push that button when your done as well. Nicely put William.
Paul May 28, 2011 at 03:53 AM
I would like to see a more neutral Host to the debate. More independant and less Right Wing. JMHO
patt colten May 28, 2011 at 04:02 AM
Thanks for the update..I look forward to the debate.
Paul May 28, 2011 at 04:02 AM
Do people understand that Walkers Budget is actually larger than Doyles?? And that Doyle had a 6.6 billion dollar projected deficit he faced?? And he shaved of 3 billion dollars, that is why FitzWalker is facing a smaller one. And not one of 3.6 billlion dollar shortfall. But, closer to 1.6 billion. Vineholt has brought out the real truth on the whole issue. And why would we charter the DNR? Privitize it. Does that really make sense? And why are we createing a new agency to do this. How will that save us money? And why can FitzWalkerHarsdorf use my hard earned tax dollars to campaign with? Yes we are paying for that propaganda she is sending out! All of us!
patt colten May 28, 2011 at 06:12 AM
Because of the heighten emotions on both sides I don't think it would be possible to find a neutral Host at this point. I believe that Micheal has tried his best to not show it , but I agree that the only fair thing to do is have a co-host picked by Shelly to make things are fair and even. We will have to leave that up to Shelly. I would like to see the debate live on Hudson's public access channel 16 as well as on the patch.
JOhn May 28, 2011 at 06:51 PM
Dear Editor, I would like to see Shelly and Sheila discuss Voter ID, and the proposed Conceal Carry. While both of these items arouse considerable emotion they are so preliminary and detailed that the reality may be miles from the public perception. For example, in my mind, voter ID is nothing more than an attempt by Republicans to disenfranchise potential Democrat votes. On the other hand, a national ID system that is fair and accurate, somewhat like the Soc. Security system, has many merits. Sheila has two UW system campuses in her district so she has a strong motive for trying to cut down on student votes. Likewise on Concealed Carry; there are a variety of elements that can make this law worse or even worser. At this point, I think Sheila has not weighed in on the most atrocious elements that the Tea Party/NRA wants, such as no permits and no training. We should demand that Sheila explain herself on such issues. And for the fun of it, let's ask her again about the $194,000 she and her brother raked in for being farmers. The debates, if they happen, would help sort things out.
Thurston Howell III May 28, 2011 at 07:39 PM
Doe anyone know about how much of the corrections system is privatized? I had an interesting conversation with someone this morning who informed me that because there's money to be made by having more people in prisons, parolees are routinely returned to prison more for the profit motive than to protect citizens from former felons. Any thoughts? Things go better without Koch. Oh yeah and Moore is Better;-)
Paul May 28, 2011 at 10:39 PM
I want to know why Shelia FitzWalkerHarsdorf thinks it's ok to use our money to campaign, when she voted to take Public Money out of Elections? She is sending out campaign material with our tax dollars and sending it out of her office, using the people we pay to do it. Check out the lastest propoganda she has sent out. See any paid for by such and such on it??
Paul May 28, 2011 at 10:49 PM
Hopefully they can find a good somewhat nuetral party, instead of the Right Wing moderator of this forum. At the very least a co-host to balance this out.
Thurston Howell III May 29, 2011 at 06:09 PM
Paul, I think you are sadly mistaken about Mike from the Patch. I have found Mike to make every effort to be a fair minded objective journalist. He is not here to promote his agenda, ( like I am LOL ). Overall I give Mike a lot of credit for being fair. We do not always agree, but I don't think Mike has ever been overly biased in one direction or the other. Put yourself in his shoes and imagine if you could do as good a job. I know I couldn't.
John Feia June 02, 2011 at 06:30 PM
Paul, i'm a day late and a dollar short on this but can I ask you what the is basis of your opinion of the moderator?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something