Scott Walker, that STINKS!

I am so glad the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel caught this one:

Aprahamian, 49, the president and owner of MidAmerican and a partner in a political consulting firm, has a long history of political donations, most of them to Republicans, state and federal campaign records show.

He is a longtime supporter of Walker, including his most recent $1,000 donation to the county executive and Republican candidate for governor that was made in late June, around the time Walker’s administration laid plans for privatizing custodial services for 2010. …

The name is familiar to me from years of reading Brookfield Mayor Jeff Speaker’s finance reports.

Just for the record Scott Walker, you are as sleazy as any other candidate you’ve ever accused. Privatization my ass. You just played a campaign payoff by promising Aprahamian a guaranteed income at taxpayer expense.

And dude, I’ve always believed in Wisconsin. You can take that “again” and shove it down one of your dirty county toilets.

Yes, I’m the conservative you only wish you could be. Imagine how much fun the left will have with you on this.

BTW, MJS, you’re stupid if you don’t start crediting bloggers who break your news. Does Dan Cody get the applause for this story?

Comments

  1. I’m beginning to suspect there are no good politicians–only ones that stink less. Yuck.

  2. Yes, it does literally stink. Stop by the Safety Building near my office and I’ll show you the facilities that Assistant DA’s like myself have been using for years….

    Thanks for your take on this, by the way.

  3. Aprahamian is a Brookfield resident and Speaker lackey, yes.

  4. “Just for the record Scott Walker, you are as sleazy as any other candidate you’ve ever accused. Privatization my ass. You just played a campaign payoff by promising Aprahamian a guaranteed income at taxpayer expense.”

    Do you have proof that this was a payoff, Cindy? If not, then you ought to be careful how you hurl insults.

  5. Don’t hang yourself on a falling star, Aaron.

  6. Cindy,

    There is info out there that another Custodial Firm donated up to five times more than Aprahamian, and they didn’t get the job. Furthermore, Aprahamian has a history of donating to Republicans and Democrats, which means that his donations were immaterial.

    I think you were too quick to act on this one, and I hope for your sake (in terms of credibility) it doesn’t bite you in the ass.

  7. Oh, so pay-to-play is common with Walker? Double disgusting. Shall we continue?

    Walker doesn’t like my opinion, therefore you don’t like my opinion. I happen to like my opinion very much. Prove to me that Walker didn’t hire Aprahamian’s firm on an executive decision or that Aprahamian didn’t contribute to Walker’s campaign and I’ll reconsider my comment. That Walker accepted money from others bidding for the work IS NOT FREAKING IMPRESSIVE.

    Are there no upright Republicans left in America? If they all think like you just did the party is doomed.

    (BTW, you just played like a liberal. My credibility… Sheez.)

  8. I’m not the one arguing like a liberal, Cindy. I asked you for proof that Aprahamsian was hired because he made a $3,000 donation to Walker, and you basically accused me of not being “upright”, dooming the Republican party, and thinking like a Walker drone.

    Liberals go after the person when they have no legs to stand on, which is exactly what you’ve done.

    The question is, do you care about your credibility? Why would you stick your neck out there if you didn’t know all of the facts? There are a lot of people who donate to politicians, should Walker refuse any and all firms that donate to his campaign even if they have met all of the qualifications and outbid their opponents?

    The fact that another firm donated 5 times more to Walker, and didn’t get the job should be a red flag to your conclusion. Did you see all of the bids? Did you examine the firms to see if they provide good services? If you haven’t, you ought to reserve your judgment and not make accusations when you don’t have all of the facts.

    How is that for arguing like a liberal?

  9. What, Walker stinks because some guy donated a few thousand dollars to his campaign over the years gets the contract, that saves the taxpayers money. If that stinks, then I sure love the smell of that. A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS, you got to be kidding.

  10. Exactly. $3,000 is a drop in the bucket to the contract Aprahamsian received. By the way, Aprahamsian has donated to republicans and democrats, including Mayor Tom Barrett. What Cindy and Capper (that has a nice ring to it) are telling us is that Walker should have checked to see if these contractors have donated to him in the past before they solidified the deal.

    However, this is counterproductive since the county deserves the best firm at the best price, and small donations to a certain politician shouldn’t prohibit their contribution to the county.

  11. You guys aren’t arguing like liberals, you’re arguing like dunder heads. >:D

  12. Cindy just jumped the shark…

  13. Aaron, I’m saying no “proof” is necessary. It’s the habit of accepting contributions from bidders that’s stinky enough. One of those contributor/bidders won a lucrative contract. That stinks even more. I can not for the life of me understand how you don’t make that connection. That kind of behavior gets any politician in trouble. If I don’t fight against the behavior, I become part of the problem.

    (It’s just dawned on me in discussing this with the spouse that this might be the tip of an iceberg for Walker. Your earlier comment that Walker took contributions from more than one potential contractor smacks of pay-to-play that could be easily investigated and prosecuted – if anyone would bother to make the effort.)

    Do I care about my credibility? Not really. My credibility is entirely based on calling ‘em as I see ‘em. It’s served me extremely well. There is never anything embarrassing about behaving with integrity. All of the facts are not relevant here. The facts reported by the paper were enough for me to base my OPINION. Yes, a lot of people donate to politicians. A lot of people do so hoping for something in return. That everyone does it will not make it right.

    Yes, Walker should refuse all donations from any participant in any firm that has a contract bid in front of the county for a running 12 month period. A credible candidate would do that in a heartbeat. (And yes, I suspect Barrett has done the same as Walker. If I had his facts in front of me I would likely proclaim I was not impressed with him either.)

    The fact that another firm donated 5 times more to Walker and didn’t get the job should be a red flag to the voters of Wisconsin that Walker will take money from all potential contractors. It means pay-to-play is a risk with this candidate.

    Better arguing given you worked with a couple of facts, but you still implied a risk to my reputation, so in general, a fail.

    Do you read your stuff before you hit submit? If $3,000 (btw, I worked under the assumption of $1,000) is all the guy put forward, I’d say he picked up a pretty sweet return on his money. That’s not the way this game works, though.

    Aaron, maybe you’re incredibly naive, but I rather think you’re just playing a role. You certainly haven’t changed my mind about this one. In fact, the more you argue, the more you convince me I was right to make the call.

    So, Doug, your candidate’s integrity doesn’t matter as long as you are promised savings in return. I guess we don’t work with the same priorities.

  14. And anonymous, you’re so sure about that you’re willing to use your real name! What a goofball.

  15. Simply saying that it stinks does not make it so. Saying “you think” it looks bad, does not make it so. Really, if want credibility, then you need to provide something more than this. Pay to Play? I don’t think so. Show us more than supposition and hearsay. Really, I would expect more than this if Walker is dirty. Willing to look at the evidence, but you must provide it. The $3000 was over many years, the $1000 only this year. Unfortunately, your credibility is in question when you say things like this. Why don’t you dig some more. Its fine to say that Walker should not take these kinds of contributions, but really he legally can. If you find evidence that its “Pay for Play” or some thing more, than put it on here. Otherwise, your more interesting when you spend your energy on something else.

  16. Of course, it could be argued that Scott Walker used a standard procurement process for picking the companies rather than a professional service contract method so he could avoid the contract coming under scrutiny from the prying eyes of the County Board of Supervisors. Put the fact that the contract didn’t come under scrutiny from the County Board together with the fact that one (or more) of the contract’s bidders gave campaign contributions to Scott Walker and something certainly smells awfully funny.

  17. Doug, my credibility is not in question. I know you wish it was true, but it’s just not the case.

    I’m working from the newspaper article. Those facts included are enough for me to base my opinion. (Oh wait. Didn’t I mention that already?) I’ll be gone in a few weeks anyway. A hack like you wouldn’t have a clue, but the blog shuts down January 12.

    I saw you smile.

    What I say doesn’t matter a hill of beans out there. How flattering you think it might, though.

  18. Cindy,

    You’re right, I cannot convince you that you are wrong. You had your mind made up a while ago about Walker, and you jump at the chance to make accusations about a man you know nothing about without the slightest bit of proof.

    All you have is that a firm made contributions ($1,000) to Walker before he was awarded the job, which by the way, he had nothing to do with. You might want to check how the hiring process occurred, but then again, you would rather wait for Steve Schultze to tell you what to believe.

    I wonder out loud how you would like it if someone used the power of their blog to accuse you of something without the slightest bit of proof.

  19. Steve who?

    Are you saying the newspaper lied about what they printed? Once again I’ll mention that’s the stuff on which I based my opinion.

    I’m really disappointed you won’t let me have an opinion Aaron. I’m not talking about you after all. We’re discussing a gubernatorial candidate.

    (BTW, that Steve whoever move was another playbook maneuver. Where’d you learn this stuff?)

  20. And I’m not saying that Steve Schultze lied. I wouldn’t know that one way or another. I’m saying that Schultze went with a story before gathering certain pertinent facts. I’ll just leave it at that, for now.

    And since we’re talking about liberal tactics, I think it’s liberal to publish posts that attack the character of public officials without having all of the facts. I mean, you’re going off of a single report from the MJS. Don’t worry though, the facts are coming. I just feel bad that you positioned yourself on the wrong side. And for what reason?

  21. Oh! He’s the reporter. Got it.

    So now you’re blaming Steve instead of me. I can live with that.

    I’m working off the report of the only newspaper in town. I can live with that, too.

    So I’m on the wrong side. The reason is I don’t like this candidate. My gut said so months ago and the facts are starting to will out. IT’S NOT LIKE MY OPINION MATTERS!

    Life will go on.

  22. You’re a blogger, and bloggers don’t go with every story they encounter, unless of course, they want to believe it beforehand. And you seemed awfully quick to jot out your opinion on Walker as soon as the story broke on Sunday night. I almost detected a small measure of glee. It must be the holiday season.

    And being a blogger, I’m surprised you don’t know who Steve Schultze is and the role he plays covering news in Milwaukee County. He’s no particular friend to Republican politicians trending back to when Governor Thompson banned him from the State Capital. Thusly, I tend to read his material with a critical eye, shouldn’t you?

    But I’m glad you publicly judge candidates based upon your gut instinct. It’s such a true and reliable standard, I don’t know why I haven’t considered it before. Oh wait, that’s because it’s better to judge a candidate on their actual record and ideological values.

  23. OOoh. If someone “banned” him he must be good at what he does.

    My gut usually is a reliable standard. Right now it’s telling me I won’t have a horse in the gubernatorial race.

    I sure wish you’d get off yours and realize not everyone is obligated to like your guy.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] is already starting to have ramifications. Cindy Kilkenny, author of Fairly Conservative, is already calling Walker out on it: Just for the record Scott Walker, you are as sleazy as any other candidate you’ve ever accused. [...]

Speak Your Mind