Do you still believe that Ron Kind represents you?
Every couple of months I like to visit opensecrets.org to get a reminder of who it is that Ron Kind represents and also to see if there is any new data and statistics. Each time I discover some new information that proves to me that Ron Kind is no longer a representative of the people of Western Wisconsin. He is a representative of the federal government and the special interest groups. Take a look at this statistic showing where Ron Kind's campaign funding comes from:

As you can see the majority of Ron Kinds campaign funding comes from outside the state and the number one metro area where he receives his money is Washington D.C. For several years now I have been trying to convince voters that Ron Kind is a Washington insider with very little interest in what the people of Western Wisconsin want. He even admitted this publicly during the big bailout debate. He said that calls to his office were split 50-50: half the calls were telling him to vote NO and the other half were telling him to vote HELL NO. So did he listen to the people of Western Wisconsin or did he bow before the alter of the big Wall Street bankers and his D.C. lobbyist friends? Just to show you how out of touch he is with Western Wisconsin voters and our values, he ended up voting YES.
This is the year to send someone to our nation's capitol who will truly represent the interests of the people. A man who has the courage to stand up to special interest groups and party pressure in order to do the right thing. That man is Dan Kapanke and I pray you will join me in supporting him in this election.

Comments
I think Ron Kind represents me
I think Ron Kind represents me. I just saw him standing in the library in my small town an hour ago, talking to a few regular looking people.
What I would like to know is, how do you square your charges of "socialism" aimed at Democrats, with your hatred of the bailout of big, capitalists banks that the Obama administration has been presiding over. The government has been selling the shares they received in the bailout as fast as possible (for a profit I might add) so the government is clearly not interested in owning banks.
Also, didn't the TARP originate under Bush?
Hatred? What Hatred?
Jim, you obviously have a warped perception of my attitude. I do not hate anyone or anything. I simply disagree with the bailouts and any policies that distort and manipulate the free market system. When businesses make bone-headed decisions and behave badly they should be allowed to fail. Someone else with better ideas and more discipline will then come along and take their place. It happens all the time in a capitalist economy.
Also, you are right that President Bush signed the TARP legislation into law and I wrote to him at the time expressing my disappointment in his decision to support a flawed policy that was passed in a Democrat controlled Congress.
As for the government making a profit on the sales... Please reference for me where it is in the U.S. Constitution that gives the Congress the authority to buy up companies and then sell them for a profit? I cannot find it anywhere in that document and I think that type of activity is best left to the banks and brokers in the private sector.
Finally, how does any of that relate to the facts that I presented in my blog post showing that Ron Kind gets the majority of his campaign funding from outside the State of Wisconsin?
The Constitution is not a
The Constitution is not a list of everything the government can and cannot do.
I can't say for sure whether the TARP was a good idea or not...but I'm glad I didn't have to witness the total collapse of the economy to know for sure. It was the free market that allowed the banks to make the terrible decisions that could very well have led to that collapse, so I hesitate to put complete faith in it to fix things. That being said, free markets are a tenet of liberty in general, an ideal I value greatly, so I also don't want to go too far in my criticism.
I disagree with your opinion
The U.S. Constitution is very much a document outlining only those things that the federal government is authorized to perform. The whole purpose of the document is to limit the power of the federal government in an effort to allow individuals to maintain their personal freedom to live their lives without the tyranny of a ruling system micro managing their lives. How else can you explain the wording in most of the amendments that begin with, "Congress shall not" or some variation of that?
As for your suggestion that without TARP the economy would collapse I respectfully disagree again. Corporations who make bad decisions go out of business all the time. What often happens is that their stock holders and board members purge bad managers and hire better ones. All TARP did was to allow the bad behaviors to go unpunished and leave the companies to continue with their bad practices on the dime of the American taxpayer.
In the example of the auto companies if they were allowed to fail then they simply would have filed bankruptcy, closed their doors for a short period of time, and then re-open with new management and more efficient procedures. It happens all the time in the capitalist system but when the government interferes mistakes are rewarded and complacency is encouraged. Considering that the auto makers ended up declaring bankruptcy anyway goes to show you what a total waste of tax dollars the program was from the start.
But I digress. The original purpose of my post was to point out how Ron Kind is funded by outside interests that could care less about the State of Wisconsin. I find it interesting that you choose to ignore this fundamental fact about Ron Kind and how it impacts the voters in Western Wisconsin.