Sen. Tim Cullen is out as a Democratic gubernatorial nominee

Shoot. That leaves room for me, heh?

I learned the news as I learn of many things: from Jessica Arp’s Twitter feed.

news3jessica 2:00pm via Twitter for iPhone
Sen. Tim Cullen to no longer seek nomination for Governor

Later she explains:

news3jessica 2:03pm via Camera on iOS
Sen. Cullen: “too uphill, too short of time” of fundraising

So there you have it.

I wonder what would prompt that announcement on a Wednesday afternoon…


  1. I wonder if this is the WisDems establishment attempting to rally behind a single candidate as quickly as possible. Unless they can pull a rabbit (or shall I say Feingold/Kohl) out of the hat, they have an uphill battle.

  2. You have such astute responses, KPOM. That one was great.

  3. The good people of Wisconsin would never support a fleebagger as governor. The name was dropped and quickly retracted after the reaction.

  4. The Union doesn’t want a primary, wants one candidate, and that candidate must be the Union candidate. All others will be persuaded to not run. I don’t think fundraising is a valid excuse since the campaign is being run from Chicago and their will be plenty of union brother/sister money.

  5. So Cullen isn’t running, Barrett isn’t announced, and that just leaves Falk? It seems like I’m missing someone.

  6. Just Falk right now. She is the candidate that is most appealing to the Union. Barrett is the preferred candidate of the Obama regime.

  7. Vinehout filed yesterday

  8. Something tells me Barrett won’t, especially if union money is already reserved for Falk. I will have to go google Vinehout and see what that’s about.

    Did Cullen have skeletons? Why did he balk?

  9. BrkfldDad says:

    Interesting, Vinehout registered on 1/27 for governor. Go here – and search for her and you’ll see here GAB-1. So much for what I agreed was Cullen pulling out because the Dems wanted no primary and to rally around a single candidate.

  10. Cullen is a decent man and had no stomach for the snotstorm that’s about to be unleashed on Wisconsin thatnks to Citizens United

  11. I’m guessing Barrett won’t run because he has a decent gig as it is and should win re-election easily. He also lost in 2010 and might not think the odds of winning are enough to justify the political risk of losing twice to the same candidate in less than 2 years.

    If Falk is the candidate, then the unions are essentially admitting all they were trying to do is waste everyone’s time and divert GOP campaign donations from the presidential race. WisDems is either working behind the scenes to find a candidate palatable to both the unions and the general electorate (which is about as likely as finding fine gold at Kohl’s), or is hoping that Falk or Obey can run close enough to carry some of the senate candidates on their limited coattails.

  12. Fred (RDW) says:

    Yes Grumps, because union money is sainted and pure and money from any other source is corrupted and evil.


  13. Way to take the high road Fred. It’s almost as if you didn’t know about the effect of CU on union campaign spending.

    Now I get to call you a name, right? How about “bloated pustulent sackbut?”

  14. That was technically three names.

    You could always articulate the effect of CU on union campaign spending so the rest of us understood.

    Stay friendly out there.

  15. Randy in Richmond says:

    Here is some recently released info. Union membership in Wisconsin dropped by 16,000 workers in 2011. Union membership is now at 13.3 % of the workforce while it was at 14.2 % in 2010 (pre-Walker).If that is turned around, 86 workers out of 100–don’t belong to a union. A Gallop Poll in the mid 1990’s showed that 65 % of the public supported unions. The same poll taken in August of last year shows 52 % supporting unions. Statisically union members are older.

    No conjecture is needed to interpret this.

  16. The Lorax says:

    So despite the waning of unions, the majority of American still support them. Glad we cleared that up.

    And the reason Cullen pulled out is because he couldn’t do the fundraising. Sometimes it really is that simple.

  17. The BLS table shows some states up and some down, hardly surprising that WI is down after the attack by Walker and WisGOP on working families. The LA Times reports a net 49,000 new union members last year while total numbers stayed essentially flat. Unions added 110,000 jobs in the private sector while losing 61,000 public sector jobs.

    Meanwhile, Wisconsin loses job six months in a row and Illinois adds 1800 high-paying union jobs 20 miles from the border.

  18. (Whispering here…I noticed that, too.)

  19. @Grumps, if you would rather have Illinois’ unemployment rate, that’s fine by me.

    Wisconsin still has too high a tax burden. The union reform was a good first step, but only a first step. Eventually the state needs to lower its income tax across the board (both for corporations and individuals). Meanwhile, Illinois is still profligate, and even a downgrade to the worst sovereign credit rating can’t convince Gov. Quinn that he can’t keep spending money.

    Illinois can’t grow its way out of its debt problems. Even the 1800 new jobs you are crowing about won’t pay the $8 billion of unpaid bills or the $90 billion unpaid pension liability (which exists primarily because the politicians are afraid to say no to the unions).