One opens the newspaper or logs on to a favorite Wisconsin news site, and it’s as if the 1990s have returned. Will the Packers be able to make a Super Bowl reappearance? Is our Democratic president still relevant? And what about Tommy Thompson and Mark Neumann running for the U.S. Senate?

Former Gov.  Thompson and former U.S. Rep. Neumann are the early favorites merely because of name recognition for the Republican nomination for Senate to replace U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl.

Neumann briefly was a conservative star during the 1990s, when he upset U.S. Rep. Peter Barca in the 1994 GOP tide and narrowly lost to U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold in 1998. His star dimmed considerably in losing to Scott Walker in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial race, and he appears to have picked up, or possibly asked the Wisconsin Club for Growth to pick up, where he left off in attacking Thompson, the longest serving governor in Wisconsin history.

Which got the attention of Thompson’s former Department of Administration secretary, James Klauser, who according to WTMJ’s Charlie Sykes wrote:

Dear Mark:

You appear to be poised to run for the US Senate seat from Wisconsin.  Sadly you seem to be reverting to the same negative approach you have taken in other campaigns.

While I initially was encouraged by your gubernatorial campaign, I withdrew my support for your candidacy because you were trashing, actually lying, about Scott Walker’s record as county executive.  You were telling people that Scott was responsible for tax increases in Milwaukee County.  That was rather bald faced.

Now, you and your ally, a right wing Washington DC political group is doing the same…trashing, lying, about Tommy Thompson’s record.  I understand that several of your former employees are well placed at the “Club”.  Evidentially they don’t understand any better than you do Ronald Reagan’s commandment.

Tommy Thompson’s record is really incredible, particularly since for the most part he had a Democrat controlled legislature:

Tommy’s first budget substantially lowered income tax rates. (Doyle later rescinded that action). He did that 3 times. Tommy cut all taxes 91 times saving taxpayers more than $16.4 billion dollars since 1987. 1900 vetoes; none overridden.  Remember the Veto pencil?

Tommy eliminated welfare as we know it.  (Doyle and the dems have managed to reinstate some parts.) This set the stage for national action.

Tommy signed into law the first school voucher/charter school reform.  Now the choice program is the largest in the country.

Tommy instituted the property tax controls, including the QEO, which have materially controlled property tax increases. (Doyle and the dems got rid of the QEO and weakened the caps.) In 1995 Tommy returned $1.2 billion dollars to local property tax payers to lower the burden of property taxes.

Tommy eliminated the inheritance tax and gift tax in 1987…

Tommy instituted an aggressive economic development program. During his tenure 740,000 jobs were created.  Wisconsin worked and felt good again.

Some are critical about some of his DC accomplishments, particularly criticizing his role with Obamacare.

Tommy has told me that he was attempting to work to develop a solution to one of our country’s greatest problems.  When the Obama administration went in their socialist direction he walked away from it.  He told me that he would vote today, were he in the Senate, to repeal Obamacare. You may have forgotten that Tommy proposed a private sector approach as governor in 1995.  It was lost due to the controversies over Hillarycare.

This is just a small listing of what Tommy has DONE; not talked about but DONE. Certainly you can pick apart his record and find something to quarrel with.  However anyone who says he is not conservative is at best ignorant or an ersatz conservative, ersatz republican.

Something else distinguishes Tommy from the rest of the field, including you.  He has been elected statewide four times (You lost twice didn’t you?) He knows how to put a campaign together; he knows what it takes.

First, this demonstrates that, in contrast to what some political observers think, the Republican Party is not a one-size-fits-all monolith. There is some validity in every comment you’ll read on this blog, because the truth is that Neumann’s, or the Club for Growth’s, version of Thompson’s record and Klauser’s version of Thompson’s record are not incompatible.

Thompson did not cut state government noticeably when he was in office. (It will be hard for Thompson to argue for a federal balanced-budget amendment when Thompson never supported a state Taxpayer Bill of Rights.) Which bothered voters very little since he was elected governor four times. The economy of the 1990s was such that Thompson could cut taxes and grow government and make all but the most partisan Democrats at least not unhappy. Regardless of the campaign rhetoric, voters do expect the people they vote for to accomplish something while in office, and Thompson accomplished a lot, even if most of his accomplishments were in growing, rather than shrinking, government.

Neumann’s business record is something elective office needs more of, as one of Sykes’ blog commentors points out:

Unfortunately conservative business man Mark Neumann has been targeted as some kind of bogey man just for pointing out career politicians records. Mr. Neumann’s record shows success in the public and private sector including balanced Federal budgets in the 1990s before big spending career politician rhinos destroyed the party with reckless spending in the 00s – especially the Bush Administration and career politician Tommy Thompson was his HSA secretary.

Unfortunately, other aspects of Neumann are something our politics needs less of, as noted by one of Sykes’ Facebook commentators:

Why is it EVERY race involving Neumann is ALWAYS so darn dirty? Can’t he win on merits instead of dirt? Taking the high road would only benefit Wisconsin …..and BOTH camps should do that!

Another Facebook commentator channels his inner Mercutio:

Tommy is a RINO, and after last year, it’s clear Neumann is motivated by an inflated ego and not ideology.

As does Boots and Sabers:

I will not vote for Neumann. Period. His primary campaign last year was disgusting and dishonest. Even if he makes it to the general election, I will write someone else in.

As many of you know, I’m not a fan of TOMMY! I appreciate his great record on welfare, school choice, and promoting Wisconsin, but he is an old-school big-spending Republican. His flirtations with Obamacare, rampant spending as governor, and many other things make him a candidate who I wouldn’t support. If he makes it to the general election, I’ll hold my nose and vote for him, but I’m not going to be happy about it.

WTAQ radio’s Jerry Bader adds:

If this boils down to a Thompson/Neumann fight, it’s going to be VERY ugly. Neumann showed what he was willing to do to win vs. Scott Walker. It got very ugly before he decided to clean up his image for this senate run. There is bad blood between Neumann and the Thompson camp, most notably in the persona of Jim Klauser. Team Thompson may not be what it was 20 years ago, but it still knows a thing or two about political street fights. Whoever emerges from this battle could be very bloodied.

The good news is whoever emerges from this fight, regardless of how bloodied, should have an excellent chance in November 2012. … Tommy has a lot of vulnerabilities, but if Mark Neumann hauls out the brass knuckles again Tommy is like to be able to take the high road to nomination, even though he is left of mainstream conservatism today.

You may recall that the last time we had Nasty vs. Nasty in a U.S. Senate primary race was in 1992, when U.S. Rep. James Moody (D–Milwaukee) and Democratic activist Joseph Checota tried to beat the stuffing out of each other so much that few people noticed an underfinanced, yet seemingly more personable, state senator named Russ Feingold. To the surprise of the experts, Feingold won the three-way Democratic primary that year, and then went on to end U.S. Sen. Bob Kasten’s Senate career.

The other thing Republicans may be looking for is Ron Johnson 2.0 — someone who is much more of an outsider than Thompson (business experience preferable), yet is more voter- and media-friendly than Neumann. (As a GOP activist told me, to succeed in politics you need to be a people person, but, she said, Neumann is not.)

The imperative for Republicans, of course, is to find the candidate most likely to win in November 2012. President Obama’s sinking approval ratings, Wisconsin’s open Senate seat and the fact that Democratic Senate winners from 2006 will have to defend their seats should make 2012 a good year for Republicans. (And the presumed Democratic front-runner for Kohl’s seat, U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D–Madison), is a self-described socialist whose, uh, personal life might rub socially conservative voters the wrong way. Leave it to Wisconsin Dumocrats to nominate Baldwin instead of the much more electable U.S. Rep. Ron Kind (D–La Crosse).) But in the same way that no Republican presidential candidate is currently leading a poll against Obama except Mr. Generic, Republicans are certainly capable of underperforming next year.

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R–Janesville) disappointed many Republicans but surprised few political observers when he reiterated Monday that he is not running for president in 2012.

“I sincerely appreciate the support from those eager to chart a brighter future for the next generation.  While humbled by the encouragement, I have not changed my mind, and therefore I am not seeking our party’s nomination for President,” Ryan said in a statement.

It’s not the first time this year Ryan has said no to a White House bid. But speculation about a Ryan candidacy has persisted, and according to some media reports, Ryan was taking a second look at the race in recent weeks.

The House budget chairman from Janesville has been urged to jump into the race by some GOP insiders dissatisfied with the current field, which is led by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann from Minnesota. Ryan’s fans within the party see him as a skilled, swing-state politician who can make the party’s best case for attacking the federal debt and overhauling entitlement programs. At the same time, some Democrats have argued that the Medicare changes he’s proposing would be a huge liability for a GOP ticket.

“I remain hopeful that our party will nominate a candidate committed to a pro-growth agenda of reform that restores the promise and prosperity of our exceptional nation,” said Ryan in the statement.

In an earlier interview this summer with the Journal Sentinel, Ryan cited at least two reasons for not running: his family (he has three young children) and wanting to see through, in Congress, the debate he started there with his controversial House budget plan, which makes sweeping changes to Medicare and Medicaid.

Ryan is the second Wisconsinite to rebuff presidential-candidacy advances of late. The other, and opposite, is former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, who has been suggested as a primary opponent for President Obama next year by those who think Obama’s main fault is that he hasn’t been liberal enough. But Feingold reiterated Monday he isn’t running for anything in 2012.

The first thought is: Why would anyone in his or her right mind run for president? A candidate has to first have, to put it charitably, the supreme self-confidence that he or she could be president, for starters. But more importantly, he or she has to be willing to put his or her entire immediate and extended family (see Bush, Neil, and Carter, Billy), circle of friends and political and/or business associates through the wringer even before the primaries begin. Candidates must be willing to endure questions of a level of stupidity found only among non-sportswriters on Super Bowl Media Day. (See Obama, Barack, birth certificate.) And the national media’s obsession about reporting the most minute detail of presidential candidates’ lives, significant or not, illustrative or not, meaningful or not, pertinent or not, should make normal people run away from running. (The media does a great job of turning people off politics, particularly during presidential election cycles.)

As a history minor and political science major, this blog writer is going to throw some political history at the blog reader. Charles Gates Dawes might be known better for writing “Melody in A Major,” which became the pop song “It’s All in the Game,” but he was Calvin Coolidge’s vice president three decades after he owned the La Crosse Gas Light Co., though it’s unclear whether Dawes actually lived in Wisconsin. (Dawes’ son drowned in Geneva Lake at 21.) And so much has happened in the past four years that one forgets that Gov. Tommy Thompson actually briefly ran for president in 2008.

There have been a few other presidential candidates of note from Wisconsin. U.S. Sen. Robert M. “Fighting Bob” La Follette ran as his Progressive Party (as opposed to Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Party; the latter once called the former “a skunk who ought to be hanged” before World War I) presidential candidate in 1924 and got 17 percent of the vote and Wisconsin’s 13 electoral votes. U.S. Rep. John Schmitz of California, who was born in Milwaukee, ran as the American Independent Party presidential candidate in 1972. Schmitz (who was Richard Nixon’s Congressman) was too conservative to be a Republican, and for that matter, he was too extreme for the John Birch Society, which booted him out. Four years later, former Madison Mayor William Dyke ran as the AIP candidate for vice president while former Milwaukee Mayor Frank Zeidler ran for president as the Socialist Party candidate. (Then in 1980, Gov. Patrick Lucey, who defeated Dyke in the 1974 gubernatorial candidate, ran for vice president as an independent with U.S. Rep. John Anderson of Illinois.) Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm, who was born in Madison, was a Reform Party candidate in 1996, but lost the nomination to the creator of the Reform Party, H. Ross Perot.

Abolitionist William Goodell, who lived in Janesville at the time of his death, ran for president as the Liberty Party candidate in 1852 and 1860. While La Follette was in Washington, East Troy native Eugene Wilder Chafin ran as the Prohibition Party candidate for president in 1908 and 1912, the last two of his nine unsuccessful attempts at office. (Perhaps being a Prohibition Party candidate from Wisconsin struck voters as too ironic to be successful.)

The one politician in my lifetime, from what I’ve read of him, who could have been a presidential candidate had he not died at just 40 was U.S. Rep. William Steiger (R–Oshkosh), the coauthor of the 1970s capital gains tax cut, the forerunner of the Ronald Reagan tax cuts. Steiger had a record of accomplishment in his 11 years in Congress; Feingold has a record of being a phony maverick and the author of the unconstitutional and reviled McCain–Feingold campaign finance law.

Becoming a presidential candidate is as easy as saying: I am a candidate for president. (Believe it or not, I forgot that I had written that.) Being a viable presidential candidate is a bit more complex. (Maybe that’s why I forgot that I had written that.) The experience we’ve had with a president who was a largely accomplishment-free U.S. senator suggests that accomplishment-free Washington politicians should not consider running for president, even if they do.

The presidency is the top of the executive branch of government. That suggests you need someone with executive-branch political experience, as demonstrated by former governors Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Unlike Washington, state governments are less sclerotic and mostly nimble enough to serve as laboratories for government reform, as Wisconsin was in welfare reform in the 1990s. Those who claim that governors lack foreign policy experience forget (1) governors’ roles in promoting foreign trade, including overseas trips, and (2) a Congressman or senator’s claim that he or she has foreign policy experience doesn’t mean that he or she has useful or pertinent foreign policy experience.

Most political experts would claim that Wisconsin isn’t big enough or important enough a state to spawn presidential candidates. (To which could be asked: And Arkansas is?) State government is an enterprise of more than $30 billion a year here. However, California, Texas, New York and even Illinois generate more national media attention than Wisconsin. (Not that that that’s necessarily a bad thing, mind you.) Gov. Scott Walker doesn’t meet presidential standards of appearance or communication ability, and if Walker doesn’t, neither does anyone else currently in state government. For Ryan to become a viable presidential candidate, he probably needs to be either Gov. Ryan or U.S. Sen. Ryan, not U.S. Rep. Ryan.

The ethnic makeup of this state (that is, our dour European ancestors) isn’t exactly media-friendly either. Can you imagine a Wisconsin politician with the sunny optimism and wit of Reagan (who once took partial blame for the early ’80s recession in that “for many years I was a Democrat“), or the guy-next-door empathy of Clinton, or the forward-looking inspiration of candidate Obama? (Do any of the Fleeing Fourteen look presidential to you?)

The other thing about Wisconsin — and it is not an attractive feature of ours — is this state’s cultural and institutional envy of success. While the Progressive Era did bring many worthwhile democratic reforms — direct election of U.S. senators, open primary elections, nonpartisan elections and open government — the Progressive Era started the war between government and business that continues in this state to this day. This has particularly been noticeable in this year’s Protestarama and Recallarama, where the facile answer to state government’s financial problems was to “Tax the rich!” instead of making the state a place where people can sell products and services and thus grow rich.

It would be too easy to blame Wisconsin Democrats or Fighting Bob himself for this. No, Wisconsin’s antipathy toward success goes back much farther, as a 2003 Wisconsin Policy Research Institute paper that asked the simple question of why Wisconsin’s taxes are so high revealed:

In reading Wisconsin’s history, what emerges is the Badger State’s rare combination of ethnic, religious, and political traditions. Mix Yankee founders and northern European immigrants; combine Protestant reformers and a strong Roman Catholic presence; add the labor activism of the industrial era to agrarian roots; douse liberally with the “Social Gospel,” the Wisconsin Idea, and Progressive-era legislation … and you have Wisconsin’s unusual brand of politics and government.

Just how unusual is suggested by Daniel Elazar, a leading student of states and federalism, who argues that the 50 states are pure or hybrid versions of three political cultures:

• Individualistic: This culture “emphasizes the centrality of private concerns,” placing “a premium on limiting community intervention.” The individualistic culture originated in such mid-Atlantic, non Puritan states as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland; it spread west to become dominant in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri; and later it spread to such states as Nevada, Wyoming and Alaska.

• Traditionalistic: This is a political culture that “accepts government as an actor with a positive role in the community,” but seeks to “limit that role to securing the continued maintenance of the existing social order.” Not surprisingly, the traditionalistic strain of American politics is a major factor in all of the border and southern states, extending west to Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

• Moralistic: The “moralistic” culture considers government “a positive instrument with a responsibility to promote the general welfare.” This culture is predominant in 17 states that stretch from New England through the upper Midwest to the Pacific coast — what several observers of American history and politics have called “Greater New England.” Even more significantly, this moralistic approach is virtually the only political culture found in nine states: Maine, Vermont, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, and, not surprisingly, Wisconsin.

The states in this last group, Elazar notes, were “settled initially by the Puritans of New England and their Yankee descendants … [who] came to these shores intending to establish the best possible earthly version of the holy commonwealth. Their religious outlook was imbued with a high level of political concern.” Most significantly for states like Wisconsin and Minnesota, “they were joined by Scandinavians and other northern Europeans who, stemming from a related tradition (particularly in its religious orientation), reinforced the basic patterns of Yankee political culture, sealing them into the political systems of those states.”

You may notice that last group, which appears to have combined the worst features of older states’ political cultures, isn’t a breeding ground of successful presidential candidates. California has always had an arm’s-length relationship with government (state budgets require two-thirds approval of both houses of its legislature, and California gave birth to the anti-tax movement through its Proposition 13 property tax limits), and Texas, unlike Wisconsin, likes business and the “rich.” Wisconsin has been historically so anti-business that it is impossible to imagine a Wisconsinite having enough money to run for president.

Wisconsin’s overemphasis on politics all over the political spectrum means we’ll always be able to supply fringe presidential candidates. Serious presidential candidates? Not in the next several election cycles, and not with the current system, which puts the “fun” in “dysfunction,” by which presidents are elected.