Will Bush wear a cardigan to save energy?

This from Drudge Report, so take it for what it's worth:

BUSH CONSIDERS ADDRESS TO NATION; CALL FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION

President Bush is considering an address to the nation asking citizens to conserve energy, a top White House source says.

Bush ordered the release of oil from federal petroleum reserves to help refiners affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Bush returned to Washington on Wednesday to oversee the federal response to the historic disaster. He plans to coordinate federal efforts, across more than a dozen agencies, to assist hurricane victims.

"Still undecided is whether or not to call for a nationwide effort to reduce energy consumption during this emergency," a top Bush source explains. "It is seriously being considered."

A second White House source says there are no plans for the president to address the country on gas.

Do you think he will wear a cardigan and sit by the fire, a la Jimmy Carter?

Will someone explain to him that the way to conserve is to turn the thermostat UP in the summer and DOWN in the winter?

Bush gives new reason for war: Oil

It's not my headline, it is from the Boston Globe. (Well, OK, I added "oil" but that's what they meant, as you'll see.

Here's the lead paragraph of the AP story:

CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

Hat tip: www.Truthout.org

Greens, Libertarians ask Doyle to end war

Cute. The Wisconsin Green and Libertarian Parties have found something they can agree on: It's time to bring the troops home from Iraq.

Instead of asking the President to offer a plan, or supporting Sen. Russ Feingold's proposal to set a target date for withdrawal, their press release blasts Gov. Jim Doyle and asks him to bring the Wisconsin National Guard home.

The Greens, somewhat ironically, are planning referendum campaigns called "Bring the Troops Home NOW!" They hope to get in on the ballot in April, seven months from now. I guess "NOW" is relative.

One manure digester will never be enough

Dane County Exec Kathleen Falk will announce Thursday that a plan is in place to develop a regional manure digester, according to a news advisory.

Given the amount of manure that is generated in the State Capitol alone, this sounds like a project that will never have enough capacity to meet the demand.

And now, some good news from Iraq

OK, you asked for it, you got it, courtesy of Grist:

Marsh o'Potamia
Once-vast marshlands being restored in Iraq

The marshlands of Iraq, drained nearly dry by Saddam Hussein, are making a surprisingly robust comeback. Seen by some as the inspiration for the biblical Garden of Eden, the lush wetlands once covered nearly 3,600 square miles near the confluence of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. Mid-century drainage projects took a toll, but the marshes were primarily destroyed by Hussein -- and that was the least of his retaliation against the local Marsh Arabs, who supported a Shiite Muslim rebellion following the 1991 Gulf War. Locals began breaching the dikes after Hussein's government fell in 2003, and about 37 percent of the area has been reflooded -- a "phenomenal rate," according the United Nations. Japan is funding an $11 million project to provide clean drinking water and sanitation to about 100,000 Iraqis who still live in the marsh area, help renew the marshes, and train 250 Iraqis in wetlands management.

Why shouldn't gun nuts make the gun laws?

UPDATE: AG Peg Lautenschlager has gone to court to seek release of the draft of a concealed carry bill that the authors shared with the NRA but won't give to the attorney general .Press release.

---

This headline on this story about a dispute over who can see the draft of the latest concealed carry bill seems to miss the main point. Here's the headline:

Gun bill ignites open records dispute;
Does sharing draft with outsiders make it public?

The gist of the story is that there is still another bill being drafted to let people in Wisconsin carry concealed weapons on the street, on the bus, in the parks, in shopping malls, at athletic events, and other places where more guns are the obvious way to stop violence.

The attorney general's office has asked to see the bill draft, since in its latest incarnation the bill reportedly designates the AG as the one to issue the permits to gun-toters.

No dice, says one of the sponsors, State Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford). Drafts are confidential until they're introduced. The AG disagrees, and says that sharing a "draft" document with anyone on the outside makes it a public document.

Boring, huh?

Until you find out that the outsiders who have seen the draft and offered comments are the pro-gun lobby, the National Rifle Assn. The NRA offered "feedback," Gunderson says.

When Gunderson announced earlier this summer that the AG would be the one to issue the permits, Deputy AG Dan Bach made a written request for copies of any drafts that the authors had shared with third parties. Bach said he made the request because the new bill could hurt the Department of Justice's budget and could make the public less safe. I don't know about the budget, but I get the "less safe" part.

"I made the request primarily because I wanted to see the bill draft, and when I got the response that I got from them, it raised concerns . . . that once again this appears to be a situation where special interests are being afforded a role in the legislative process and the rest of us are being frozen out of it," he said.

That's the real issue: Should the NRA lobbyists secretly be writing gun legislation? (Some will say they have been for years, which is probably true).

Gunderson apparently doesn't see anything wrong with that.

Of course, he doesn't see anything wrong with every Tom, Dick and Harriet packing heat, either.

Watch for this bill to come out of the chute fast, get a quick hearing and be rushed to a vote before opponents have a chance to organize.

UPDATE: A squishy editorial follows the story.

Making hateful attacks on "hate speech"

State Rep. Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford) has launched a hate campaign against hate speech, EyeOnWisconsin observes.

Suder's all worked up that a British Parliament member is to speak against the Iraq war on the UW campus, introduced by -- gasp! -- Jane Fonda. Worth a read.

Poll shows solid, growing supportfor disengaging from war in Iraq

There's a lot to chew on in the new Washington Post-ABC News poll, aside from the headlines that the President's approval rating is at an all-time low.

A series of questions on the Iraq war, how Bush has handled it, and what we should do, suggest that if Sen. Russ Feingold is out in front of the antiwar mood in this country, the gap isn't that big and is narrowing.

By a margin of 57-42, people disapprove of the way Bush is handling Iraq.

When asked whether the U.S. should set a deadline for withdrawing its troops,39% say yes and 59% no. That is a solid base for withdrawal, and it is likely to continue to grow. Feingold has not proposed a deadline, but rather a target date, of Dec. 31, 2006, but that seems to be too fine a distinction for most people and the media to make. (Supporters of the war, of course, don't want to get it, so they can accuse him of wanting to "cut and run.")

In any case, the pollsters told the 39% who supported a deadline in the previous question that a Dec 31, 2006 deadline has been proposed for withdrawing US military forces from Iraq, and asked their reaction. Four per cent said that was too soon; 45% said it was too late; the other 50% thought it was just right.

So 20% of the population thinks Feingold's date is just right, and another 19% think we should set an earlier deadline. That's a good start.

More telling, perhaps, was the question; "Do you think Democrats have gone too far or not far enough in opposing the war in Iraq?"

Fifty-three per cent said "Not far enough," 37% said they've gone too far, and 4%, like Goldilocks, thought it was just right.

Finally, people were asked whether they think the US should keep troops in Iraq until civil order is restored, even if that means more US casualties, or whether the US should withdraw to avoid further casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored. Respondents said we should stay, but the margin was only 54-44, and it has been in steady decline since July 2003, when 72% said we should stay no matter what.

The message is that people's patience is wearing thin. They don't see progress, they don't like Bush's handling of the war, and they are beginning to look for a way out. It may take some time to reach a consensus on how to do it, but that is the direction this country is headed.

If you want to pore over the results and offer your own analysis, feel free. Here's the link.

Introducing LeftyBlogs.com

No better time than the present to introduce you to www.LeftyBlogs.com , a project launched a couple of weeks ago by Kari Chisholm of Mandate Media., a political consultant and internet strategist in Portland, Oregon.

LeftyBlogs regularly scans and collects the latest posts from almost 900 liberal blogs across the country, sorting them by state. It's an easy way to see what's happening in the blogosphere.

There was a little glitch in getting the Xoff Files link up and running properly, but that apparently was fixed in the middle of the night, resulting in a flood of posts from this site. But starting today it should work normally.

Check it out.

Newspapers take care of their own

Excuse me while I lapse into my journalism review mode for a moment.

Most people know that the best way to guarantee that you'll get a real obituary in the newspaper, rather than just a paid death notice, is to work for the newspaper. It's one of those perks, and it extends beyond the newsroom to other departments, too.

That's certainly their prerogative. They're the ones who buy the ink by the barrel, although we are the ones who help pay for it.

What prompted this was a Journal Sentinel story announcing the appointment of a new deputy managing editor, Thomas Koetting. It's a big job, but one were you may never read his name again unless he wins a prize, gets promoted again, or retires from the paper.

But this is the sentence that caught my eye:

He replaces Gerry Hinkley, who recently retired after a distinguished career at the Milwaukee Sentinel and the Journal Sentinel.

I don't know Gerry Hinkley, and I have no reason to doubt that she had "a distinguished career" at the newspapers. But I know that you would never read that kind of statement about a non-newspaper person unless it was in quotes and attributed to someone. This particular story didn't even have a byline, so you can't even say it was the reporter's opinion.

Which suggests, to anyone who has worked around a newsroom, that it was written by a higher-up, to be run as written without editing. I'm hoping the first thing Tom Koetting does is to end that practice.

Helping the people of New Orleans

Our hearts go out today to the people of New Orleans, a truly special city, and to the rest of the Gulf Coast devastated by the hurricane.

Nothing I can say or write will help. We're going to make a contribution today, but that seems so inadequate. People desperately need help, and many will never recover from this tragedy. And all we can do is write a check. I wish there were something more to do.

If you want to help, here are some suggestions:

Where to Donate

A variety of government and private agencies are en route to assist victims of Hurricane Katrina, and federal officials said people wanting to help should not head to the affected area unless directed by an agency. Instead, Michael Brown, head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, urged people to make cash contributions to organizations. Cash donations "allow volunteer agencies to issue cash vouchers to victims so they can meet their needs," he said.

FEMA listed the following agencies as needing cash to assist hurricane victims:

· American Red Cross, 800-HELP-NOW (435-7669) English, 800-257-7575 Spanish.

· America's Second Harvest, 800-344-8070.

· Adventist Community Services, 800-381-7171.

· Catholic Charities USA, 800-919-9338.

· Christian Disaster Response, 941-956-5183 or 941-551-9554.

· Christian Reformed World Relief Committee, 800-848-5818.

· Church World Service, 800-297-1516.

· Convoy of Hope, 417-823-8998.

· Lutheran Disaster Response, 800-638-3522.

· Mennonite Disaster Service, 717-859-2210.

· Nazarene Disaster Response, 888-256-5886.

· Operation Blessing, 800-436-6348.

· Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, 800-872-3283.

· Salvation Army, 800-SAL-ARMY (725-2769).

· Southern Baptist Convention Disaster Relief, 800-462-8657, Ext. 6440.

· United Methodist Committee on Relief, 800-554-8583.

-- Associated Press

In Wisconsin

Greater Milwaukee chapter, American Red Cross, (414) 342-8680

Southeast Wisconsin Tri-County chapter, American Red Cross, (262) 554-9997

--Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Extra! Extra! Dennis York lives

He insists this is not an unretirement, but simply a need to get something off his chest on a timely topic.

Whatever the case, Dennis York is back, at least briefly, with an item that bashes lawmakers in both parties for trying to score political points on the tragedy that has hit New Orleans. (Although Judy Robson gets it a little more than John Gard, who seems like an afterthought). Here are Gard's release and Robson's letter, which actually has 18 signers including some Repubs.

Read York's Open letter to residents of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama here.

Welcome back, even briefly, Dennis, whoever you are. (Once again, he left no fingerprints.)

Story on Clark speech tilts toward GOP

First, something from the AP story on Wesley Clark's Madison appearance, and then a comment or two:

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark called the war in Iraq a strategic blunder that has been poorly handled by the president, but he advised Tuesday against setting a deadline to withdraw U.S. troops, as fellow Democrat U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold suggested.

Clark, a four-star general who unsuccessfully ran for president in 2004, called the war a mistake during a stop in Wisconsin to raise money for fellow Democrats. He said President Bush failed to plan for the aftermath of the initial invasion and committed a "strategic blunder" that cost 1,900 lives and $200 billion.

Still, he said his military experience has convinced him setting deadlines does not work. Clark spent 34 years in the military, including time as supreme allied commander of NATO.

"You put the deadline out there for us to come home, it's used against us," Clark said.

Feingold, D-Wis., earlier this month said the U.S. should set a target date of Dec. 31, 2006, to have all of its soldiers out of Iraq. He said the proposal was meant to jump start the process of bringing American troops home.

Wisconsin state Republican chairman Rick Graber said Clark's criticism of the war was politically motivated and a sign he will run for president in 2008. He said most Americans believe a deadline to withdraw from Iraq is a bad idea and Clark's comments show how little support exists for Feingold's target.

Feingold said in a statement Tuesday the deadline is meant as a target date to end the mission in Iraq and allow the U.S. to refocus its efforts on the larger fight against global terrorism rather than let the war "dominate our security strategy and drain vital security resources for an unlimited amount of time."

Although the AP writer, J.R. Ross, clearly knows Feingold has not called for a deadline, but rather a target date (as he explains later in the story), he allows GOP hatchetman Graber to comment on a "deadline" and say "most Americans" think it's a bad idea.

You would think the GOP chair with a corner office in one of the state's big law firms would read the Wall Street Journal, but maybe he missed its story last week, about a Harris poll, that said:

As in June, most Americans (61%) favor bringing a large number of U.S. troops home from Iraq in the next year, the poll shows. That's up sharply from 47% in a November 2004 poll. In comparison, 36% of those polled say they want to keep troops in Iraq until a stable government is established there, down from 50% in November, the poll shows.

Another poll, done for AP itself, showed 78% of Americans believe the Iraq war has either increased the threat of world terrorism or had no effect.

Unfortunately, Ross' story is what most Wisconsin newspapers will provide for their readers Wednesday morning.

Bush ends non-vacation early, heads for higher ground

So after more than a month of insisting that being in Texas wasn't really a vacation, and that the President could do everything there he could do at the White House, it fell to Scott McClellan, Bush's spokesman, to explain to reporters today why Bush needed to go back to DC to handle the hurricane.

This from the press gaggle, via Wonkette:

Q This is more -- this is more symbolic. Cutting short his vacation is more symbolic because he can do all this from the ranch, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think -- no, I disagree. Like I said, this is one of the most devastating storms in our nation's history, and the President, after receiving a further update this morning, made the decision that he wanted to get back to D.C. and oversee the response efforts from there. This is going to -- there are many agencies involved in this -- in this response effort, and it's going to require a long and sustained effort on behalf of all the federal agencies working closely with state and local officials to help people recover from the destruction and devastation.

Q What is he unable to -- what is he unable to do in Crawford he could do --

MR. McCLELLAN: We'll talk to you all later. We've got to go. Thank you.

-- Tony Auth, Philadelphia Inquirer (Click on cartoon to enlarge)

Stealth candidate may fit right in

This Journal Sentine lstory about a former Menomonee Falls trustee who filed a committee to to run for Assembly, but asked the State Elections Board if it could be kept secret, is interesting on a couple of counts.

One is the secrecy question, of course. Elections Board chief Kevin Kennedy says Chris Slinker asked to file anonymously, but the appropriately named Slinker denies it. Why on earth would Kennedy make up something like that?

Another is that Slinker left his state job working for State Sen. Alberta Darling (R-Whitefish Bay) last year after he was accused -- but never convicted -- of campaigning for local officials on state time. Maybe Rep. Scott Jensen (R-Not Convicted Yet) could find him one of those jobs to run Republican campaigns on someone else's payroll, like he did for Rep. Scott Suder. (Earlier post.)

Slinker says he's "exploring" a challenge to GOP Rep.Susanne Jeskewitz (R-Menomonee Falls), who he says is not conservative enough.

UPDATE:In a followup story, Kennedy says Slinker talked to an Elections Board staffer and "questioned whether it would be public" and whether there would be "another way to do it that is not" public. Those questions are not unusual from prospective candidates, Kennedy said. Whatever that means.

Quote, unquote

"One thing we do is tell both sides of the story." -- WTMJ talk show host Charlie Sykes.

I heard that today with my own ears, but managed to keep the car on the road. I could buy "we tell the OTHER side of the story." Both sides? Never.

Green-Walker debate will heat up later

What if they held a debate and nobody disagreed?

It sounds like that's what happened when Repub gov wannabes Scott Walker and Mark Green met for the first time in their long campaign to win the GOP nomination next year.

It was pretty much all sweetness and like, according to Amy Rinard's Journal Sentinel story:

An event billed as a debate between Republican gubernatorial candidates Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.) and Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker nearly turned into a love fest on Friday with the two friends and former colleagues agreeing that they agree on most issues.

The only point of contention seemed to be whose experience is more relevant to being governor.
But it is early, and the climate will change. Right now both campaigns are busily doing opposition research, to explore every possible weakness or negative on the other guy.

In the final analysis, campaigns are all about drawing distinctions between candidates, and giving people a reason to vote for you instead of your opponent. And whether it is better experience to be a Congressman than a county exec is hardly going to be a voting issue for most people.

If the Walker-Green race is at all close a year from now, and hasn't turned into a foregone conclusion, you can expect the debates next August -- face to face and on television commercials -- to have some real bite. Right now, in front of Republican crowds, it makes no sense to be the one to take the first shot.

But by next summer this one should be fun to watch.

Everything you wanted to know about Robin Vos but were afraid to ask

We told you Monday about Robin Vos, the Republican state rep from Burlington who was so modest he told everything about his personal tastes on a dating website but didn't reveal he was a legislator, saying he was "self-employed." Earlier post: "Sensitive legislator wants to meet skinny-dipping flirt with money, power."

Soon after that post went up, Vos' page mysteriously became unavailable on the Match.com website.

But never fear. Although we cannot recreate the page exactly as it existed, we have salvaged all of the data and photo, which we share with you now as a public service in case you want to warn your daughters about him.

His profile:

"Looking for someone to travel the world with me"

I am a:
37 yr old man

located in:
Burlington, Wisconsin, United States

looking for:
26 to 35-year old woman

within 50 miles of Burlington, Wisconsin, United States

relationships:
Divorced

my ethnicity:
White / Caucasian

body type:
About average

height:
5’ 10” (177.8 cms)

sense of humor:
Friendly: I’ll laugh at anything

About me and who I'd like to date

I have been so fortunate during my life and now I just need someone to help me enjoy all that life has to offer. I like to consider myself intelligent and attractive, both mentally and physically. I have a close circle of friends and seem to make friends relatively easily. My spare time is spent doing a multitude of things. During the summer there's nothing that's better taking a long walk on the beach, going to the theater or movies, going out with friends, quiet nights at home, reading, biking and traveling...plus much more that I can not think of right at this moment.

I am registering here because I don't want to just meet people at the typical places and I figure there must be a lot of people like me who feel the same way. I am looking for someone who wants to have fun, meet new people, and is not afraid of saying how she feels. One of my favorite quotes ... "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did." I try to live by this quote so I decided to take a chance and register here. Email me if you are likeminded.

She should love having all-night stimulating conversations, seeing plays/musicals/movies, enjoying a fabulous meal at an intriguing or quaint restaurant, traveling abroad or just going to the country for the weekend and staying at a cozy B&B or having picnics in the middle of the woods. I would love to meet a woman who loves the beauty of the fall and who is crazy about the Christmas Season. I love being spontaneous, so if we hit it off, don't be surprised if you receive a phone call telling you we're off and running for the weekend. I really enjoy making friends so it would be an honor to meet you and see what happens.


Appearance

height:
5’ 10” (177.8 cms)

eyes:
Blue

hair:
Light brown

body type:
About average

body art:
Wouldn’t even think about it

best feature:
Eyes

Interests

sense of humor:
Friendly: I’ll laugh at anything

sports and exercise:
Cycling, Running, Walking / Hiking, Basketball, Bowling, Football, Hockey

common interests:
Alumni connections, Business networking, Coffee and conversation, Cooking, Dining out, Hobbies and crafts, Museums and art, Music and concerts, Performing arts, Playing cards, Political interests, Shopping/Antiques, Travel/Sightseeing, Volunteering, Wine tasting

Lifestyle

exercise habits:
Exercise occasionally

daily diet:
Meat and potatoes

smoke:
No Way

drink:
Social drinker, maybe one or two

job:
Self-Employed

income:
No Answer

my place:
Live alone

have kids:
None

want kids:
Someday

how many:
2

willing to adopt:
Possibly

pets:

I have:
No Answer

I don't have, but like:
Dogs, Fish, Birds

I don't like:
No Answer

Background/Values

ethnicity:
White / Caucasian

faith:
Christian / Catholic

education:
Bachelors degree

languages:
English

politics:
Conservative

About My Date

hair:
Auburn / Red, Black, Light brown, Dark brown, Blonde, Dark blonde

eyes:
Blue, Brown, Grey, Green, Hazel, Black

height:
3’ 1” (94.0 cms) to 5’ 9” (175.3 cms)

body type:
Slender, About average, Athletic and toned

languages:
English

ethnicity:
White / Caucasian, Asian, Latino / Hispanic

faith:
Christian / Catholic, Christian / Protestant, Christian / Other, Christian / LDS, Spiritual but not religious, Other

education:
Some college, Associates degree, Bachelors degree, Graduate degree, PhD / Post Doctoral

job:
Any

income:
Any

smoke:
No Way, Occasionally

drink:
Non-alcoholic beverages only, Social drinker, maybe one or two

relationships:
Any

have kids:
Any

want kids:
Any

turn-ons:
Long hair, Skinny dipping, Flirting, Public displays of affection, Dancing, Power, Money, Brainiacs, Boldness / Assertiveness, Erotica

turn-offs:
No Answer

Move over McCarthy, here comes McBride

If this continues, we may have to call it McBrideism instead of McCarthyism.

Jessica McBride's latest complaint is that the media, in its news stories, calls Bush supporters conservatives but doesn't call Cindy Sheehan and anti-war protestors left-wing radical pinkos. Earlier, she had tried to link Sheehan to communist influences through Code Pink, one of many groups supporting Sheehan.

A sample piece of more recent guilt-by-association from McBride:

Left out of the piece? Sheehan is, in fact, buttressed by extreme Left-wing organizations such as Code Pink and the anti-Israel Crawford Peace House, among others. She has appeared in an anti-Bush television commercial created by PR guru David Fenton, a former photographer for the militant and violent Weathermen subversive organization. He also does PR for moveon.org and a group of 9/11 families that harshly criticized Bush.

I've never heard of David Fenton, but I doubt that he pretends to be neutral when it comes to George Bush and the war in Iraq.

Is MoveOn now equivalent to the Weather Underground? If so, McBride and her conspiracy theory friends will be able to link all sorts of Dems to it.

Did you know that McBride once lived in Shorewood, which is right next to Whitefish Bay, which is the hometown of Bernadine Dohrn of the Weather Underground? Just wondering. Do you think there's a connection? Do I have to mention it every time I mention McBride?

Another Iraq veteran speaks

Here's another in a series of interviews with real live troops who have served in Iraq,in a report from AlterNet.

Part of the Q-A:

Did any soldiers express dissent or not agree with the reasons for the war once they were actively participating in the war?

We all bitched. The only ones who didn't were the Neocons.

Were you ever informed of an exit strategy while you were on active duty?

No. I am not sure my command is aware of the meaning behind the words "exit strategy"! Kidding, obviously.

Sensitive legislator wants to meet skinny-dipping flirt with money, power

Looking for an intelligent, attractive, spontaneous guy who likes taking a long walk on the beach, going to the theater or movies, going out with friends, quiet nights at home, reading, biking, traveling, having all-night stimulating conversations, seeing plays/musicals/movies, enjoying a fabulous meal at an intriguing or quaint restaurant, traveling abroad or just going to the country for the weekend and staying at a cozy B&B or having picnics in the middle of the woods?

Or are you exhausted just thinking about it?

His "turn-ons: Long hair, Skinny dipping, Flirting, Public displays of affection, Dancing, Power, Money, Brainiacs, Boldness/Assertiveness.

The blue-eyed, meat-and-potatoes conservative who posted his description on Match.com says he's self-employed. [UPDATE: He's taken down his listing, but you can find the content here.]

But, except for that discrepancy, he certainly seems like a dead ringer for State Rep. Robin Vos, R-Burlington, who announced last week that he is a single guy and that, "Saying I am against birth control is to say I am against water." His profile says he does want two children, though.

Happy hunting, Robin. Hope being outed as a legislator doesn't cramp your style.

No, 2005 is not 1968 -- or is it?The time has come to choose sides again

Iraq is not Vietnam, and 2005 is not 1968.

That's the conventional wisdom. It's what we've been telling ourselves. But I'm less certain about that today than I was two weeks ago.

Something is happening in this country, and some of us have seen it before. An antiwar movement has been quietly building, showing up in the polls if not on the streets. And it is about to exert itself politically. Maybe, as Maureen Dowd suggests, there is "a cultural shift that is turning 2005 into 1968."

I remember 1968 very well as one of those defining moments when people had to choose sides. Recognizing that perhaps two-thirds of the people in the blogosphere were not born in 1968, it may be worth a little retrospective.

Historically, once the decision to go to war is made, this country usually unites behind its commander-in-chief, and even opponents of the war give him the benefit of the doubt, in the interest of presenting a united front, patriotism, and "supporting the troops."

But that "safe conduct" pass expires after a time. In this case, the revocation may come sooner than usual because we have learned that President Bush led us into war under false pretenses. He was determined to oust Saddam Hussein whether the facts warranted it or not.

So under cover of the claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction he was just waiting to use, and that Saddam was somehow linked to Osama Bin Laden and the 9-11 attacks, Bush got his wish.

Now, two and a half years after "shock and awe" and 27 months after Bush declared "Mission Accomplished," the US finds itself bogged down in a war without a front, where substantial pockets of the population are hostile, and where the "host" country's own troops are woefully inadequate to provide its own security.

Parallels in LBJ's Vietnam and GWB's Iraq

President Lyndon Johnson went to war in Vietnam under false pretenses. After a questionable incident on the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, LBJ persuaded Congress to pass a resolution giving him more authority to wage the war, while offering assurances he had no intention to escalate a ground war. He promptly broke his promise, and in April 1965 the first Marines landed.

The public and the Congress gave LBJ his opportunity, just as they have given it to George W. Bush. But Johnson found himself in a war without a front, where substantial pockets of the population were hostile, and where the "host" country's troops could not provide security. Sound familiar?

Three years after those Marines landed, in April 1968, LBJ ended his reelection campaign the day before the Wisconsin primary. His other considerable accomplishments as President did not matter compared with his massive mistake in Vietnam.

LBJ's decision came after an embarrassing Democratic primary showing in New Hampshire, where Eugene McCarthy, a little-known Senator from Minnesota, got 40 per cent of the vote as an antiwar candidate. McCarthy's success got Bobby Kennedy into the race, and it got Johnson out. Kennedy was assassinated, Hubert Humphrey, LBJ's vice-president, beat McCarthy for the nomination, and Richard Nixon, with a secret plan to end the war, became president.

It took five more years, until 1973, for the last US troops to leave Vietnam. Another 20,000 members of the U.S. military were killed and 100,000 more wounded during that time.

Is Feingold the next Howard Dean or the next Gene McCarthy?

Tom Hayden, a Vietnam war activist who became a California state senator, asked this week whether Wisconsin's Sen. Russ Feingold is the next Howard Dean. Dean, of course, surged ahead in the Democratic presidential primary season last year because of his strident opposition to the Iraq war. Feingold is alone so far in calling for a defined target date of Dec. 31, 2006 to get US troops out of Iraq.

Perhaps a better question is whether Feingold is the next Eugene McCarthy. McCarthy was not in the antiwar vanguard with people like Wayne Morse, Ernest Gruening, Gaylord Nelson,Frank Church and George McGovern. But he was the one willing to run and make the case against a sitting president.

McCarthy did not win the White House, but he helped end the war. Feingold could end up with a similar result. If he does, it would be a great legacy. Sometimes it truly is better to be right than to be president -- although being both would be ideal.

Feingold hasn't said he's running for president in 2008 yet, but if he does he will start with a base who won't forget that he spoke up first. He has solid credentials on the issue, having voted against the war in the first place. None of the famous "voted for it before I voted against it" in his case.

I've never been a Feingold fanatic. Maybe it goes back to when I dismissed his chances of winning a Senate seat in 1988 and worked in the primary for one of the losers. I may not end up supporting him for president; he may not even run. But I am in Feingold's corner today.

Chicago 1968: A time to choose sides

In mid-1968, I had been back from Vietnam less than a year and was only three months out of the Marine Corps when I covered the Democratic convention in Chicago as a reporter. As the demonstrators on the streets said, the whole world really was watching,

I was still ambivalent about the war when I went to the convention -- and especially whether I, as a journalist, should come out against it -- but I wasn't ambivalent by the time it was over. It was a time when it was impossible to be neutral. The first Mayor Daley helped to radicalize me and crystallize my politics. It surprises me that Tom Hayden, who was tried as one of the Chicago Seven who organized those protests, would reference Howard Dean rather than Eugene McCarthy.

This country was already polarized last year, but Iraq -- although a key component --wasn't really what caused it. There were many other factors at work, too.

Now, it's about the war. It's about taking a stand. We are approaching another of those critical moments, like 1968, when you do have to choose sides.

Would-be presidential candidates who lollygag and mugwump on this issue do so at their own peril. This is no time to mince words.

Wanted: A candidate who will oppose the war

Armando caused a small uproar when he said on Daily Kos, the most-read liberal blog, speaking of "the Bidens, Clintons and Bayhs," that:

"We need to let them know that if they don't get on the right side of the Iraq debate, then we won't support their presidential ambitions."

I'm ready to say that right now. I will not support a presidential candidate who does not have a strong, clear position against the war and a plan to end US involvement there.

Clark, who will be in Madison on Tuesday, praises Feingold while saying he disagrees about setting a date for withdrawal. He writes in the Washington Post:

The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home.

Well and good. When should that be? How about a timetable, General?

Even when liberals were flocking to Clark last year I had trouble understanding the appeal. Maybe it's being an enlisted man, but it is highly unlikely I would be supporting a four-star general, for any public office.

Meanwhile, 53 per cent of people in the US think the war was a mistake, another 61 per cent think we should get out within a year, and 37 per cent think we should pull our troops out right now, a recent poll says.

Feingold's position is perfectly reasonable and defensible. His detractors like to try to apply the knee-jerk "cut and run" description, but that's not what he's talking about. He's suggesting that we have a rational discussion and try to set a target date to leave Iraq, so that we are not there, as happened in Korea, 50 years from now.

Feingold links his position to a quest for more global security and a stronger focus on international terrorism, saying Iraq is a distraction that takes attention and resources away from the larger goal. Fifty per cent of Americans believe that the war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism, so he may be on to something.

The polls are already there. Action in the streets is beginning. Can the teach-ins on college campuses be far behind?

Cindy Sheehan's vigil and the 1600-plus observances, attended by hundreds of thousands across the country, to support her are just the first small indicators. In September, when Congress goes back into session, Washington will become the focal point of protests against the war. Feingold believes his Democratic colleagues will be "asking themselves how to do something against the war" in September.

They should waste no time. Remember that if 2005 truly equates to 1968, it could be five years -- 2010 -- before we get the last troops out. The American people will not accept that.

If President Bush means it when he says we will stay and fight in Iraq as long as he is president, there is only one thing that can prevent a Democratic victory in 2008. That is if the Democrats repeat their mistake of 1968 and nominate a candidate who is unwilling to run against the war.

Let's hope we at least learned that lesson.

Book 'em, Danno

Joel McNally confesses that he and his wife have signed confessions saying they may be committing premeditated murder, if the occasion arise. The Capital Times has the details.

Maureen Dowd: W has jumped the couch

Maureen Dowd introduces a new term -- jumping the couch, as in what Tom Cruise did on Oprah. W has jumped it big-time this week.

But the most telling line in her column is what I've been thinking all week about the way the tide is turning on the Iraq war.

Writing about a Crawford barbecue the President held for the press, she says: "W. chatted about sports and the twins, still oblivious to the cultural shift that is turning 2005 into 1968."

More on that later.

Political reporting 101: How big is the buy?

This story has been in my pending file for a couple of weeks, but is still instructive.

Between the Internet and 24/7 cable news, we are approaching the point where it won't be necessary to actually run any television commercials to get media coverage about them.

The example I've used is the group that wanted to discredit AARP, the American Assn. of Retired Persons, at the beginning of the Social Security debate. They simple made a spot that linked AARP to support for gay marriage, put it up on the Internet (I think for a day or less) and let the media take it from there.

Bingo! National coverage about the spot, everyone heard the message about AARP and gay marriages, and no one had to spend any money actually advertising on TV.

This story from New Hampshire brought that to mind. The Associated Press ran a story about a guy who was coming to the Granite State to campaign for Hillary Clinton for President, running TV spots, holding news conferences, and stirring up some positive talk about Hillary.

It seems no one asked the basic question: How big is the buy? The answer, it turned out, was $264, to buy spots on one cable system.

Meanwhile, Hillary's opponents, who announced a campaign to Stop Her Now, aren't faring too well, either. This report says the group, which said it would raise $10-million to defeat Clinton in her Senate reelection bid and kill her White House chances, had raised $12,000 -- and spent $27,000.

Bush writes a note to Cindy Sheehan

It's just come to light, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, that President Bush didn't ignore Cindy Sheehan after all. The White House has coughed up a personal note he wrote her a couple of weeks ago, in which he shared his feelings. Read it here.

Quote, unquote

It seemed so ridiculous, all these people in such a rage, arranging over-the-top counter-protests and bringing out an army of motorcyclists all to bear down on a group of floppy-hatted, middle-aged women in matching pink shirts. But the more people who turned out to protect George Bush from having to answer Cindy Sheehan's questions, the more ridiculous he looked -- it's hard to maintain the manly man cowboy image when you cower in fear behind a group of bullies who stoop to attacking the character of a bereaved mother.

--Amanda Marcotte, after a visit to Crawford, Texas and Camp Casey, in a piece on AlterNet.

Liberals are so intolerant? Yah, and so's your old lady

This from Mark Morford, SF Gate columnist. As the person said who sent this to me, "This is highly entertaining, but it's clear that ol' Mark doesn't get out of the Bay Area very often."

By MARK MOFORD

I get this a lot: Hey Mark, you nefarious and perverted liberal commie tofu-hugging sex-drunk San Francisco medical experiment gone wrong from the land of fruits and nuts (or some iteration thereof -- so cute, my hate mail can be), hey, I notice you love to ridicule those creepy Christian megachurches and you enjoy spanking wide-eyed Mormons and tweaking the litigious nipples of the cult of Scientology and you recoil from toxic Bush policy like a vegetarian recoils from undercooked veal ...

And I can tell you think Dick Cheney is pretty much the devil in a defibrillator and that America is so desperately on the wrong track it might as well be North Korea, and you clearly tend to wince in savage karmic pain when looking down the rusty barrel of a welfare-happy red state and I just have one slightly nasty and pointed and cliched question for you --

Here it is: Where is your supposed progressive openness? Your liberal generosity of spirit? I thought you Lefties were all mushy and passive and live-and-let-live?

In other words, where is that famous so-called tolerance I thought all you libs were supposed to possess like some sort of gentle polyamorous smiling hug for the world?

To which I reply: You cannot be serious. Does the answer really need to be articulated? Is it not painfully obvious? Can I have a shot of Patrón and a long nap before I answer? Here goes ...

You, hate-mailers from the sanctimonious Right and even some of you morally paralyzed middle-grounders from the Left, are correct. I am, in fact, deeply intolerant. It is true. I can hide my deep biases and predispositions no longer.

I cannot, for example, tolerate the dark and violent road down which this nation seems intent on careening like an Escalade on meth. I cannot tolerate brutal never-ending unnecessary wars and I cannot allow gay rights to be bashed and I truly loathe watching women's rights be slammed back to 1952. Or 1852.

I really have little patience for the gutting of our school system and the decimation of science and mysticism and the human mind for the sake of a handful of militant Christian zealots who truly believe the Second Coming will be arriving really soon but hopefully not before the next episode of HBO's "Cathouse: The Series," which they watch in secret with the lights off while clutching a Bible in one hand and a big tub of Country Crock margarine in the other.

I cannot tolerate an American president, ostensibly meant to be one of the most articulate and intellectually sophisticated leaders on the planet, mumbling his semicoherent support of the embarrassing nontheory of "Intelligent Design," to the detriment of about 300 years of confirmed science and 10 million years of common sense to the point where America's armies of dumbed-down Ritalin-drunk children look at him and sigh and secretly wish they could have a future devoid of such imbecilic thought but who realize, deep down, they are merely another doomed and fraught generation who will face an increasingly steep uphill battle, who will actually have to fight for fact and intellectual growth and spiritual progress against a rising tide of ignorance and religious hegemony and sanitized revisionist textbooks that insult their understanding and sucker punch their sexuality and bleed their minds dry.

I have surpassed my allowable limit for how much environmental devastation I can willingly swallow or how many billion-dollar tax subsidies our cowardly CEO president gives his cronies in Big Energy while doing nothing to ease our gluttony for foreign oil, all the while trying to tell us how many undereducated misguided American teenage soldiers we have to sacrifice at the bloody altar of oil and empire before we can call ourselves king of the bone pile again.

But I am perhaps most intolerant, not of Christians per se, not of faith, certainly not of radiant self-defined spirituality, not even of organized religion, though I do fully believe more independent spirits and raw human souls and moist sexual licks have been lost to its often narrow-minded and cosmically rigid brainwashing techniques than have ever been saved. But hey, that's just me.

I am most intolerant of, well, of those who allow such intolerance. Of those who would, based on their narrow views of sex, God, love, hope, war, the mind, the Earth, soil and animals and air and water and fire and love and spirit and drugs and guns and dildos, work to legislate those neoconservative beliefs, codify them, make them the law of the land, force their regressive beliefs on everyone else under punishment of violence and beatings and prison. I am, in short, intolerant of intolerance.

Oh, let us be clear. I love diversity, religious pluralism, peace and love and pacifism and good drugs and open-mouthed sensuality, happy to let you believe in any god you like and marry any gender you like and let you love how you will and be in full control of your sex and your body and your mind.

This, to me, is the America worth fighting for. These are the laws I support. Don't believe in abortion? Don't understand gay people? Sexuality make you rashy? Think Harry Potter teaches kids evil and witchcraft? Don't marry a sexy gay witch abortionist. But don't you dare, based on your limited understanding of God and life, make laws declaring that I can't.

But maybe this is the problem, especially here in San Francisco, the World Headquarters of Tolerance, where liberals tend to be so PC and open-minded they merely sigh and shrug when our government and half of the nation move to outlaw everything they stand for, when they openly loathe human rights and try to codify homophobia in the U.S. Constitution and slowly annihilate Roe v. Wade and treat any display of resistance or questioning of the norm the way a dog treats a fire hydrant.

Enough. Basta. Let's refashion the old, stagnant definition of tolerance and make it less about merely enduring, merely putting up with the existence of other narrow-minded beliefs no matter how devastating and embarrassing they obviously are to the nation's health.

Rather, let's flip that sucker over and baste it with raw goat butter and sear it on the open flames of divine justice and bliss and intellectual fire and white-hot orgasm and burn it new.

Let us take the rather flaccid word tolerance and pump it full of Ecstasy and medical marijuana and sake and real divine love and fancy book learnin', turn it on its head and spin it like a bottle and reclaim it from the neocon Right and turn it into, say, giddy outrage. Or radical reconsideration. Or ecstatic rebellion. Or wet conscious electric pointed awareness. Is this not a better way?

Let us explode those dead meanings, correct the mistaken neocon dictionary. Let us hurl that dying and mealy and abused term back at their powerful and often bigoted scowl. Here is your weak, ineffectual tolerance. We cannot swallow it anymore. In fact, we are choking on it.

"Cut and Run Russ?" Who says?

This story from the Green Bay Press Gazette raises some questions:

Feingold keeps up heat on Iraq policy
Not all colleagues joining his call to pull out troops by ’07

By Brian Tumulty
Press-Gazette Washington bureau

WASHINGTON — Although critics are labeling him as “cut-and-run Russ,” Sen. Russ Feingold says he’s getting a favorable response to his call a week ago for a complete pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2006.

“I’m extremely enthusiastic about the very strong positive response from people who are very grateful that somebody said something other than the slogans we are getting from the president,” the Wisconsin Democrat said.

As for how his plan has been cast by critics, Feingold said, “It’s different from just cut and run. It’s an attempt to create a plan and a time frame to finish the job and bring the troops home. It’s the people who are defensive about this, who realize the president is not doing a very good job, and are trying to spin what I am saying in a way that is simply inaccurate.”

No other member of Congress has joined Feingold in setting the end of next year for a full troop pullout, although a small number — including Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Milwaukee — are advocating a start of the pullout by October 2006. Three other Wisconsin lawmakers interviewed this week indicated they aren’t ready to join their colleagues.

“When you set calendar dates, you send a signal to the enemy that they have to wait only so many months,” U.S. Rep. Mark Green, R-Hobart, said Thursday. Feingold holds a minority view, said Green, pointing out that 118 House members have joined the Victory in Iraq Caucus he co-founded.

But Green distanced himself from other critics who have labeled Feingold as “cut and run Russ,” saying the senator is a principled person who happens to be wrong on Iraq policy.

The article refers to 'critics' who have labeled Feingold “cut-and-run Russ,” but it never says who they are or that they spoke on background or asked for anonymity.

In fact Green 'distances' himself from these 'critics' yet we have no idea who they are. If the article is going to lead with a reference to 'critics' with a quote shouldn't we at least know who they are or that they didn't want anyone to know who they are? Or that they aren't Mark Green's staffers, off the record?

Growing numbers against Iraq war; 87% support people's right to protest

This is an amazing number: Eighty-seven per cent of people surveyed in an AP-Ipsos poll (results) say they support the right of critics of the Iraq war to protect US policies.

The poll found that only 37% approve of the way Bush is handling the war, 53% think the war is a mistake, and 47% think it has increased the threat of terrorism. Sixty per cent say US troops should stay until the situation is "stablized, but 37% would bring them home right now.

So the American people really do understand that it's OK to criticize the government. That doesn't mean, of course, that they won't call you everything in the book and suggest that you are a disloyal, unpatriotic Communist dupe (see some of the comments on this blog, for example). That, of course, is their right, although it doesn't seem too productive.

Rep. Mark Green, meanwhile, continues to tout the fact that 118 members of Congress (out of 535) have joined his "Victory in Iraq" caucus as proof that Sen. Russ Feingold, who wants to set a target date to get out of Iraq, is in the minority.

That number has been at 118 and holding for a long time, and considering that Green's group presents itself as a "support our troops" caucus, it's surprising every member of Congress doesn't belong.

The tide is turning. As someone said, the times they are a-changing. And Mark Green will be one of the last to figure it out.

One idea to prevent confusion

Letter to the Business Journal:

Avoid confusion on health care proposals

Your Aug. 5 edition carried a Guest Comment by state Rep. Jon Richards on the Wisconsin Health Plan. This plan was developed by David Riemer, former budget director for Gov. Jim Doyle, and supported by Richards and Rep. Curt Gielow. Your headline was "Wisconsin Health Care Plan has bipartisan support."

The problem here is that "Wisconsin Health Care Plan" is the title used for some three years for the comprehensive plan being developed by the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO and a number of major corporations in Wisconsin -- a plan quite different from the one described in the Richards' op-ed.

While the Riemer/Richards/Gielow proposal has a number of excellent components (some quite similar to elements of our plan), we feel our plan -- to be publicly proposed later this fall -- will be much simpler and less expensive. We expect it also will have significant bi-partisan support.

--David Newby, President, Wisconsin State AFL-CIO

---

Hey, here's an idea. Since the AFL-CIO plan hasn't been publicly proposed yet, how about calling it something else? Or is that too obvious?

From Working for Change. Click on cartoon to enlarge.

An Iraq veteran speaks

Mark Green uses an e-mail from one soldier in Iraq to support his case for Victory in Iraq, whatever that means, since no one has defined our mission or how we would measure victory.

There are lots of service people who have served there, with lots of different viewpoints.

Here's an interview with another, Kelly Dougherty, who is working to stop the war.

Do-Not-Recruit list comes to Milwaukee

The Do-Not-Recruit List, which prevents high schools from giving contact information on students to military recruiters, has come to Milwaukee.

Parents have always had the right to ask that their junior and senior sons and daughters be taken off the list, which schools must supply to recruiters as part of the No Child Left Behind Act. But until recently that provision was unpublicized.

Now parents not only have that option, but will know they have it.

Pro-Life Wisconsin says:'We have really taken a pasting'

This exchange posted on DailyKos blog:

E-mail to Pro-Life Wisconsin

Dear Sir/Madam --

I read with dismay your recent press release regarding the death of Marine Staff Sgt. Chad Simon. Given your obvious grief over his passing and compassion for his family's loss, and in light of his great sacrifice to our nation, I was wondering what you did in the days leading up to his death in an attempt to save his life.

I anxiously await your reply. Thank you very much.

Matt

---

Here is the response that I received from the hate group:

Dear Matt,

Thanks for contacting us. To be honest, we had been contacted by certain members of SSgt. Simon's family who were alarmed that he might have his feeding/hydration tube removed. There was not much to be done, however, as the courts had already decided his fate. It is still unclear what exactly was in SSgt. Simon's living will document and exactly what his wishes were.

As for our press release, it has been greatly distorted. We put out a release that mentioned SSgt. Simon as an example of why ethical end of life directives are important. We perhaps were a little too aggressive in pointing out that SSgt. Simon did not die from the wounds he so valiantly received on the battle field, but instead died after having his feeding tube intentionally removed. His family was not mentioned, nor was the hospice center where he received care. [Do you think saying he was murdered might have been a little aggressive? The release did mention hospice care, and was rewritten after HospiceCare threatened a lawsuit. -- Xoff]

The sad fact of the matter is that while the press continues to play games around this issue, we have service men in Iraq who have signed end of life directives that may be used against them if they are incapacitated. People don't usually think about these issues and it is very easy to check a box without giving due thought to the intrinsic value of even a severely injured Marine. The press, however, will be the press. [Here's the release; Read it yourself.]

I hope I answered a few of your questions. I can understand why you were alarmed after reading some of the press stories around this issue. We have really taken a pasting. [Nowhere near what you deserve, but we'll keep working on it.]

If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Marc Tuttle
Communications Director, Pro-Life Wisconsin
(262) 796-1111
marc@prolifewisconsin.org

---

One of several previous posts here on the subject.

Opening the floodgates

The Journal Sentinel, in an editorial on Great Lakes water usage, wisely suggests that there is more at stake, in considering Waukesha's request for water from Lake Michigan, than Milwaukee's desire to be a good neighbor.

The danger is that if we allow that camel to poke its nose into the tent, it will drink all of the water in sight. As the newspaper puts it:

But beyond the science, our concern is about precedent. Giving Waukesha what it wants would have negligible effect on Lake Michigan. But it would not be the only community wanting the water, and once that magic barrier is broken, who's next. Madison? Chicago suburbs? Cities in the Great Plains and beyond?

All the more reason to go slow -- and not be afraid to say no, if that is the appropriate answer when all is said and done.

---

Speaking of Waukesha and water, Jim Rowen wonders if there's something in the water there that makes Waukesha politics so interesting.

Dolly Parton latest to join musiciansagainst the war? She says no, but ...

The musical lineup at Camp Casey has almost been enough by itself to make you want to go to Crawford, clear some brush, ride a bike, or protest the war.

Marcia Ball last Friday, James McMurtry and Steve Earle on Saturday, Joan Baez on Sunday.

If I hear Dylan's on the way, so am I. But that seems unlikely.

I don't think Dolly Parton will show, either, despite some speculation on Salon that Dolly is anti-war. To wit:

NEW YORK -- As goes Dolly, so goes the South?

Call me crazy, but at a Meadowlands concert last November, it had crossed my mind that Dolly Parton -- proud fake flower of the South -- might have been flirting with quasi-political statement. In the midst of her half-dozen costume changes, flashing lights, waving American flags and medley of greatest hits, she had paused to talk about her memories of the 1960s before launching into treacly and overproduced versions of Kris Kristofferson's "Me & Bobby McGee" and John Lennon's "Imagine." I can't explain it, but it felt significant at the time -- intentional, pointed. Then again, in those weeks, it felt like weather forecasts and movie listings were telegraphing coded messages of post-election woe.

But on Thursday night at Radio City Music Hall, it seemed that maybe I had been on to something in November. Parton performed in New York on the second stop of her "Vintage" tour to promote the October release of "Those Were the Days," an album of covers from the 1960s and 1970s, including songs by Lennon, Kristofferson, Cat Stevens, Judy Collins and Bob Dylan.

By comparison with last fall, the show was practically Spartan: no costume changes, no medleys, not so many spotlight pyrotechnics . . . Sure, she was clad in a dress of many rhinestones, and there were the requisite boob jokes. But there were also the reminiscences about her good friend Jane Fonda. And her well-worn memories of a poor upbringing in Tennessee, how her "mama always had one [baby] on her and one in her," were accompanied on Thursday by an unfamiliar nostalgia for "the old hippie days" of the 1960s.

About an hour into the show, Parton picked up a guitar that looked like it had lost a fierce battle with a Bedazzler and began to talk in earnest about that old-time activism. "I didn't necessarily agree with all the politics of that time," she said, "but I think a lot of the things they were talking about -- like peace and freedom -- are about as American as apple pie." She then performed the Byrds' "Turn, Turn, Turn."

And she wasn't done. Barely pausing for breath, she moved to Dylan, talking about how important it was that he had sung songs that had mattered to the country. She'd recently been listening to his antiwar classic "Blowin' in the Wind," she said, and had thought, "Well this song is about what's going on right now! I've got to record this."

Parton's live cover of "Blowin' in the Wind" should probably have been cringe-inducing, but it wasn't. Stripped down to Parton's powerful pipes and a guitar, it worked. And she definitely enunciated particular verses, especially the questions "How many ears must one man have before he can hear people cry? And how many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?" Parton, who had perfect silence for the first half of the song, finished it to a massive standing ovation from the New York crowd. And however unlikely the messenger, it was almost impossible to imagine the lyrics being about anything other than a direct message to George W. Bush.

Parton's final protest song was "Imagine," which she prefaced by wishing that John Lennon had lived to see whether we would ever have peace. "I don't know that we ever will have it," she said with a casual laugh, "'cause we seem to like to fight a lot, I guess. But I still think it's something we can hope for and that we should hope for." The cover was much better than it had been in November, and she asked the audience to sing along to the song's final plea that "the world will live as one." I had really cheap seats, but I'm pretty sure she flashed a peace sign.

Parton, 59, will probably never appear on a "Vote for Change" lineup; she cannot afford to go all Dixie Chicks on her red-state fan base. And her performance Thursday didn't necessarily convince me that she would want to. A longtime interpreter of Scottish folk, bluegrass and mountain music, Parton may just have turned her attention to a more recent genre of grass-roots melody. But it's pretty telling timing, and Parton is a very, very smart woman.-- By Rebecca Traister

Just for the record, Dolly says in an AP story that she is not being political:

With so many of the songs associated with the anti-war movement of the '60s, she worried people might get the wrong idea.

"I'm certainly not into any kind of political thing or protest. People who know me will know I've chosen these songs to really kind of uplift and to give hope, like they were written for at the time," she says.

Still, she says the songs speak to the times - both then and now - and she didn't want to shy away from them.

"I just felt it was good time to bring a lot of these songs back," she says. "We don't want to be at war, but of course we have to fight if we have to. We don't want to lose our children in war, but of course we do. So we write about it and sing about it, and it kind of helps us relieve our grief and express ourselves."

But she is, as Salon notes, a very smart woman.

"Pro-life' outrage gets some notice

The outrageous behavior of Pro-Life Wisconsin, which accused a grieving widow and HospiceaCare of murder for following the wishes of a critically wounded Marine and allowing him to die, has still gotten scant notice in the media.

It is getting some attention today on the best-read blog in the country, DailyKos, and in an article by yours truly in this week's Shepherd Express.

Earlier post.

1960s here we come: American Legion declares war on protestors

Editor and Publisher reports:

American Legion Declares War on Protestors -- Media Next?

NEW YORK The American Legion, which has 2.7 million members, has declared war on antiwar protestors, and the media could be next. Speaking at its national convention in Honolulu, the group's national commander called for an end to all “public protests” and “media events” against the war.

"The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples," Thomas Cadmus, national commander, told delegates at the group's national convention in Honolulu.

The delegates voted to use whatever means necessary to "ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism."

'We will stay, we will fight, we will vacation'

"An immediate withdrawal of our troops in Iraq, or the broader Middle East, as some have called for, would only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations," he said. "So long as I'm the president, we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror." -- President Bush.

So there you have it. How long will Americans continue to fight and die in Iraq? As long as George Bush is president.

Not sure where he gets the "we" part. It would be more accurate to say, as he did the other day, that "So long as I'm the president, I will have lunch with Secretary of State Rice, talk a little busines; Mrs. Bush, talk a little business; we've got a friend from South Texas here, named Katharine Armstrong; take a little nap. I'm reading an Elmore Leonard book right now, knock off a little Elmore Leonard this afternoon; go fishing with my man, Barney; a light dinner and head to the ballgame. I get to bed about 9:30 p.m., wake up about 5 a.m., so it's a perfect day."

Wonder who it is, exactly, that is calling for "an immediate withdrawal of our troops in Iraq." Apparently it's not his man Barney or Katharine Armstrong, and we sure as hell know it's not Secretary Rice.

Walker needs a mandate to do the right thing

Here's an interesting twist:

Scott Walker, Milwaukee county exec, is on the verge of proposing cuts in a county program that provides health care to the poor. No surprise there; people on the bottom have always been the target of Walker budget cuts.

But look at his rationale, in today's story:

Walker looks at cuts in health care for poor
County financial squeeze cited in considering action

By DAVE UMHOEFER

Seven years after Milwaukee County committed to serving the uninsured after closing Doyne Hospital, County Executive Scott Walker is contemplating major cuts in - or elimination of - the county's health care program for the poor, which served 29,000 residents last year.

Walker said the county's ongoing budget squeeze and the fact that no state law mandates the safety-net General Assistance Medical Program explains his consideration of reducing the county's $13.7 million tax-levy support by $1 million to $5 million, or phasing it out entirely.

So Scott Walker, who complains bitterly about state mandates on county government, admits that he's someone who needs a state mandate to get him to do the right thing.

Let's file this under Suspicions Confirmed.

Quote, unquote

" 'It pains me to hear that more people should die because those people have died. That makes no sense. We can honor them by having an intelligent, honest policy."

--Celeste Zappala of Philadelphia, a co-founder of the antiwar group Gold Star Families for Peace and the mother of a son who died in Iraq, responding to President Bush's statement that the US would honor the dead by continuing the war in Iraq.

A remarkable Republican rant

Just when you think that maybe you've been unfair to characterize Wisconsin Republicans as uncaring Neanderthals, along comes Gary Arneson, chair of the Republican Party in the 3rd Congressional District, represented by Democrat Ron Kind.

Arneson, the Tomah Journal reports, had this to say on Kind observing the 70th anniversary of Social Security:

"Ron Kind can celebrate the Socialist Ponzi scheme, house of cards, band-aid of the great depression if he wants to but now it's a tourniquet on our future. If it works, why is he pushing 401k's to supplement Social Security? It's because of the paltry 1.9 percent return on your investment. He wants you to continue to pay your FICA taxes into a system that everyone knows is going bust and then save for retirement again with a 401k plan. Kind is a tax and spend liberal who wants to keep FICA taxes going to Washington so he can spend it and keep people dependent on government."

Thanks for sharing.

Gary Hart: Who has courage to say "No more?"

Former Sen. Gary Hart challenges Democrats to speak out on Iraq, in a Washington Post op ed.

George McGovern's 1972 campaign, which Hart managed, suffered a crushing defeat, for a variety of reasons -- but not because of his principled stand against the Vietnam War. Sen. Russ Feingold, whose call for a target date for withdrawal is actually pretty moderate, is on the cutting edge of the Democratic Party on the issue, virtually all alone. Right now, the answer to the question Hart poses below is Russ Feingold.

From Hart's column:

No Democrat, especially one now silent, should expect election by default. The public trust must be earned, and speaking clearly, candidly and forcefully now about the mess in Iraq is the place to begin.

The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war. The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating "Stay the course" even when the course, whatever it now is, is light years away from the one originally undertaken. The truth is we're way off course. We've stumbled into a hornet's nest. We've weakened ourselves at home and in the world. We are less secure today than before this war began.

Who now has the courage to say this?

Sheehan, families speak for themselves

The Washington Post reports:

BOISE, Idaho, Aug. 23 -- President Bush, confronted by antiwar protesters on his travels, Tuesday renewed his refusal to meet with high-profile activist Cindy Sheehan, asserting that she does not speak for the majority of families who have lost relatives in combat.

I don't recall Cindy Sheehan ever claiming to speak for anyone but herself.

"I want one answer," Sheehan said: "What is the 'noble cause' MY son died for? There are also dozens, if not hundreds of families from all over the country who want to know the same thing."

Others are beginning to speak for themselves, too. Back to the Post:

"President Bush probably breathed a sigh of relief when he landed in Idaho last ight," said Laura McCarthy, whose son is in Iraq, as she addressed 100 people at the Boise protest. "But no matter where he goes, he's going to find a Cindy Sheehan in every community across the United States. The name is going to be different, but the message is going to be the same."

Mob scene at Mark Green event

Mark Green's newsletter says this Photo of the Week was taken at "the largest "Meet Mark" reception we've had yet," at Robinson Park in Wisconsin Rapids. Mark had 'em mesmerized, it would appear.

Hold page one!

Can you believe it? Scott Walker got called for jury duty, just like a normal person.

Of course, that warranted a press release.

Multi-media conglomerate at work

What on earth is going on? I was just in the car and heard Charlie Sykes, the Republican radio talker on WTMJ, spend several minutes promoting his blog and all of the great items he has posted there.

Is readership down?

F. Jim reviewed by Rolling Stone -- no stars

This from a Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi, entitled, "Four amendments and a funeral: A month inside the house of horrors that is Congress."

This is the longest section on Sensenbrenner, but there's more.

Sensenbrenner is your basic Fat Evil Prick, perfectly cast as a dictatorial committee chairman: He has the requisite moist-with-sweat pink neck, the dour expression, the penchant for pointless bile and vengefulness. Only a month before, on June 10th, Sensenbrenner suddenly decided he'd heard enough during a Judiciary Committee hearing on the Patriot Act and went completely Tasmanian devil on a group of Democratic witnesses who had come to share stories of abuses at places like GuantanamoBay. Apparently not wanting to hear any of that stuff, Sensenbrenner got up midmeeting and killed the lights, turned off the microphones and shut down the C-Span feed, before marching his fellow Republicans out of the room -- leaving the Democrats and their witnesses in the dark.

Hat tip to EyeOnWisconsin.

When it comes to employment policies,Suder brings experience to the table

So there will be an audit of University of Wisconsin employment practices, done at the request of the UW president by the non-partisan Legislative Audit Bureau. Well and good.

"I want the people of Wisconsin to have every confidence that their public university system respects and properly invests in the employees who serve UW students, campuses and communities," President Kevin Reilly said. "A review by the nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau would reassure the public and strengthen actions that the Board of Regents, the chancellors, and I will take following our own thorough look at employment policies and practices."

He acted after a pack of howling Republican legislators, getting a whiff of some political raw meat, pressed the UW to disclose how many felons it has on its payroll. That came after revelations that at least three convicted felons still are being paid by UW.

Republican legislators haven't had so much fun beating up the university since the 60s and 70s, when they were all wrought up about anti-war, anti-American students and faculty members exercising free speech and academic freedom. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to stamp out either one.

The UW has had a streak of bad performances recently when it comes to PR, and has mishandled enough things to put itself in a bad light with the public, without any help from the GOP.

But when Republicans go after UW, it's not because of its billing as the top party school in the country. It's because it's full of liberal pointy-headed liberal professors, as George Wallace used to say.

One interesting note was that State Rep. Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford) was leading the pack of rabid Repubs howling for felons to be outed and, presumably, dismissed.

Suder's repeated calls for investigations of UW employment practices reminded some Capitol watchers that he's certainly someone who knows firsthand about unsavory employment practices.

Suder, a longtime Capitol legislative aide, was elected to the Assembly in November 1998. But he didn't take office until January. Two months without a paycheck. What to do?

Enter Speaker Scott Jensen (R-Still Not Convicted), whose office found Suder a cushy spot on the legislative payroll, "working" for two legislators who didn't even know Suder was on their payroll.

Suder couldn't remember exactly what he did, either, when asked by the Wisconsin State Journal.

The newspaper reported:

According to documents from the chief clerk's office, Suder received $4,609.16 in November and December 1998 from the offices of former lawmakers Robert Zukowski and Clifford Otte, even though he didn't work for either one that year.

When asked about the work he did in late 1998, Suder said he couldn't remember anything specific.

"I did mostly grunt work, special projects that related to the Legislature," Suder said. "I can't give you a particular project. There were a lot of things we did."

Asked what he meant by "grunt work," Suder said he couldn't think of anything specific.

Suder also initially said he couldn't recall where he'd worked at the Capitol, but later in the interview he said he worked at his home and at Jensen's office. However, Suder said he couldn't remember how much time he spent in either place.

"At various times I worked in the speaker's office, at various times at home, which I'm allowed to do," Suder said. "I can't tell you what I did on a daily basis."

With that background, it's a little harder to take Suder seriously when he says things like: "The UW's employment and dismissal policies need serious reform and their most recent actions are forcing the Legislature to intervene."

Who better to intervene? Maybe Jensen could help write personnel handbook.

---

On another note, it was ironic for Suder, who has sought to cut university funding, to criticize UW Pres Reilly when he said it would be costly, labor-intensive and time-consuming for UW to run a check on all employees to see if they had any felony records. It would be cost-prohibitive, Reilly said, prompting howls from Suder and the wolf pack.

Kevin at Lakeshore Laments blog first ridiculed Reilly and UW Regent President David Walsh, suggesting that the UW could just use the state court data base, called CCAP, to run a check. But someone must have told him that university professors are a little more mobile and haven't spent their entire lives in Wisconsin, so he rewrote the item to suggest that maybe all 50 states have similar systems. Right. Maybe Kevin could just get a list of UW workers and put their names in himself, or get a few other Republican bloggers to help.

CORRECTION: Sometimes when I read more than one right-wing blog at the same sitting it addles my poor little liberal brain. Kevin did not rewrite his post. It was Dad29, expanding on Kevin's piece, who took it farther and made it sound as though the CCAP data base was the answer. I lament that mistake.

Editorial: State GOP should apologize

As if the gargantuan mess that was last November's election in Milwaukee wasn't bad enough, the Wisconsin Republican Party has been painting it as even more dire than it actually was. This campaign of hype crossed the line of decency two weeks ago, however, when it sullied the reputation of an innocent person, who now deserves an apology. -- Journal Sentinel editorial.

Yesterday's post,"Republican charges untrue, but they go right on making them."

Cue up the slime machine!

Cue up slime machine!

101st Fighting Keyboardists and chickenhawks. Great job defending our great nation against treasonous war heroes like Sens. Hagel and Kerry, and the families of war dead who refuse to thank Dear Leader for killing off their wives, husbands, and children. But the enemies of America won't rest.

Here's your next mission if you choose to accept:

Bill Moyer, 73, wears a "Bullshit Protector" flap over his ear while President George W. Bush addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

You know what to do. Get to it. --DailyKos.

What we are fighting for

Now the President has told us why he will ask more men and women to die in Iraq:

Bush said the nation has "lost 1,864 members of our armed forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and 223 in Operation Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan.

"We owe them something," he said at the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "We will finish the task that they gave their lives for. We will honor their sacrifice by staying on the offensive against the terrorists and building strong allies in Afghanistan and Iraq that will help us win and fight -- fight and win the war on terror."

We stay because others have died there, and we honor them by giving more lives.

Isn't that what they tell suicide bombers?

And a couple of other questions:

What exactly is our mission now, and how will we know when we are finished?

If we send more to die now so that the 2,000 already lost will not have died in vain, don't we owe the same thing to the next casualties? When does it end?

Who will be the last one to die for this mistake?

Perhaps a little more research is in order

How embarrassing is this for a legislator being touted as one of the Republicans' rising stars?

State Rep. Robin Vos, R-Caledonia, is the co-sponsor of a bill, AB-285, that would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions if they have moral objections. The so-called "pharmacists' conscience clause" could allow them to refuse to dispense so-called "morning-after pills" but also birth control pills.

Planned Parenthood Advocates has started an online ad campaign to point out his views to his constituents.

And Vos responds by saying he doesn't really know what that bill does, but will listen at a public hearing and then decide whether he supports it. His local newspaper reports:

Vos said a public hearing next month on the proposed bill, of which he is a sponsor, will help him decide whether the bill would damage a woman's right to get her birth control and if he will continue to support it.

"I would like to wait for the public hearing in September to see what the bill would do," said Vos, who was not immediately familiar with the bill and its objective.

Normally, that is something you'd do before you agree to be a sponsor.

Racine Journal Times story.

By popular demand (two people), here is one more quote from the story:

Vos says the group has mistaken his take on birth control. "I'm a single guy," he said. "To say I am against birth control is to say I am against water."

Republican fraud charges untrue, but they keep right on making them

So there stands Republican Chairman Rick Graber, egg on his face, vowing to keep ordering more eggs.

After pulling off a major case of fraud on Milwaukee media, holding a news conference which offered no facts and, it turns out, nine false claims of voter fraud, Graber & Co. say they plan to keep right on with their campaign to make the rest of the state think there is something rotten in Milwaukee.

From their perspective, what's rotten in Milwaukee is that there are too many Democrats there every time we hold an election. So the GOP has set out to find ways to keep as many of them as possible away from the polls. Their favorite idea is to require photo ID cards, despite clear indications it would disenfranchise many of the poor, elderly and minorities -- all of whom vote disproportionately Democratic in Milwaukee.

It was in support of photo IDs that Graber, State Rep. Jeff Stone and State Sen. Joe Leibham held a news conference, in front of the home of a family that turned out to be totally innocent of any voter fraud.

The GOP said it was turning over "evidence" of nine cases of double voting to the US attorney, another Republican appointed by George w. Bush. (They didn't mention that they had previously turned over 49 other cases, of which 48 proved to be unfounded.)

The Republican prosecutor, Steven Biskupic, investigated and announced that there was not a single case of fraud or of double voting among the nine new cases the GOP sent him. Biskupic's letter.

The newspaper story:

In a letter issued Monday, Biskupic's office outlines what it found in each of the nine cases.

Six of the names were incorrectly included in the city Election Commission's database of Nov. 2 voters because of clerical errors. For instance, names were not recorded correctly in polling place logbooks. Or the wrong name was recorded when names from the books were later scanned into a computer.

In the other three cases, the letter says, the individuals voted only in Milwaukee. For instance, someone with a similar name but different birth date voted in the other city.

The letter underscores the level of recordkeeping problems in the Election Commission office. During its investigation, the newspaper found hundreds of cases where people were listed in the database as voting twice, something city officials blamed on a computer glitch. The newspaper also found dozens of cases where the number of voters recorded in logbooks was different from the votes counted in the precinct.

"These raised a flag with us because of everything that has gone on over there," said Rick Wiley, executive director of the state Republican Party. "We're going to continue our investigation into what we consider a mess over there."

Wiley said the party last week sent 10 more names of potential double voters to investigators. He also said before holding its news conference, the party had sent 49 cases of potential double voting within the city of Milwaukee to investigators. Of those, Wiley said, investigators had indicated 48 of the cases were not cases of fraud, while the other is being looked at as a fraudulent vote.

"The governor continues to blame this on clerical errors," Wiley said. "But the investigation has made it clear. People have been charged with voting fraudulently in this election."

There is a mess in Milwaukee's election system. All sorts of efforts are underway to fix it. But it is the US attorney -- not the governor -- who says clerical errors were to blame in these false charges, brought by the GOP, of double voting.

And, yes, a small number of people have been charged, after thousands of hours of investigations, which are continuing. The GOP's batting record seems to be 1 for 58 on double voting charges. Back to the minors, wouldn't you say?

In the last presidential election, 277,535 people voted in the city of Milwaukee. The massive turned created all sorts of problems, most of them clerical and record-keeping problems.

The Journal Sentinel, which has written volumes about problems in Milwaukee's voting system in the presidential election, continues to write as though there is some kind of massive fraud involved.

What are the results of the investigation so far? Fourteen people charged, including 10 felons who should not have voted. None of these 14 cases have anything to do with photo IDs.

The paper reports:

So far, 10 felons have been charged with voting illegally. Two others have been charged with double voting. In addition to those federal cases, two were charged in Milwaukee County Circuit Court with falsifying voter registration cards. None of the cases has gone to trial.

"There still is no evidence of a widespread conspiracy," Biskupic said. "But there still is plenty of evidence of double voting and the like."

Based on that, and one other comment from Biskupic, the paper was able to write a headline that said:

Nothing points to fraud in 9 double voting cases;
But U.S. attorney expects other charges in election investigation

With the amount of investigating going on, there no doubt will be more charges. How many? Fourteen more? Four more? Forty more? There will not be massive numbers, and there will be no charges of any kind of organized voter fraud. It simply isn't there.

But it serves the Republicans to keep beating that dying horse. They'll never admit they lost Wisconsin to John Kerry last year; it had to be fraud, they say.

We're still waiting for that evidence, and no avalanche of news releases and press conferences will cover up the fact that there isn't any such evidence.

While we're giving out demerits, Mark Green should get in line. Here's what he had to say when Graber held his news conference to make his false charges:

In yet another shot to the core of our democratic system of government, the Republican Party of Wisconsin revealed late this afternoon that they have found a number of additional cases of apparent double voting in last Fall's election -- including people who voted in both Illinois and Wisconsin. Read more here.

These latest revelations are another black eye for Milwaukee, Wisconsin and further proof that we need a wholesale reform of our election laws -- including requiring voters to show photo identification before they vote.

Actually, Congressman Green, they are another black eye for the Republican Party, which needs to clean up its act.

Walker accidentally says what he means

Sometimes people accidentally say what they mean. Like Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, vetoing a resolution asking the legislature to do something to stop the sale of guns to minors and felons.

That action comes while Milwaukee is in the midst of a murder spree that has already claimed 88 lives this year. Four more people died over the weekend, all of gunshot wounds.

Walker said the county should focus instead on getting people off the streets who commit gun crimes and addressing "the symptoms that lead to more violence in our community."

A Journal Sentinel editorial has more to say about Walker's refusal to acknowledge that illegal gun sales are a major factor in the county's 2,000 deaths from gunshot wounds since 1991.

Those 2,000 deaths are the symptoms. Illegal, unreported gun transfers are part of the problem.

FOOTNOTE: Walker didn't mention that his solution to the problem includes support for a law to let people carry concealed weapons on the streets, in stores, parks, on buses, and almost everywhere else. Milwaukee law enforcement officials oppose it, including the wingnuts' favorite Democrat, Sheriff David Clarke.

Politicians challenged to disavowtactics of extremist Pro-Life Wisconsin

I've written a couple of times about Pro-Life Wisconsin's outrageous and vile attacks on the family and caregivers of a Monona Marine who suffered critical brain injuries in Iraq, and who was allowed to die, as he had expressly requested in a living will. Previous post.

That extremist group also opposes abortion without exception -- even in cases of rape, incest, or to save a pregnant woman's life -- and has even entered the legislative wars against birth control.

The group makes poliltical endorsements. Twenty five members of the legislature were endorsed by Pro-Life Wisconsin in 2004. Many will be looking for their support in 2006.

Which brings us to Mark Green and Scott Walker, the two Republican candidates for governor who describe themselves as "pro-life."

A Capital Times editorial challenges Green and Walker to speak up:

Let's be clear: Peggy Hamill and the rest of the Pro-Life Wisconsin crew have no conscience, no honor and no sense of responsibility. No reasonable observer could ever expect them to do the right thing for the Simon family or anyone else in Wisconsin who is suffering or in need of sympathy.

But a serious question remains with regard to the controversy caused by the Pro-Life Wisconsin press release and the refusal of the group's leadership to apologize for calling "murderers" those who honor the wishes of an incapacitated Wisconsinite: Do politicians who seek the support of the so-called "right-to-life" movement share those attitudes?

Two candidates for governor in 2006 identify themselves as "pro-life" politicians: Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and U.S. Rep. Mark Green, a Green Bay area Republican. The two Republican gubernatorial candidates have been notably silent regarding the controversy.

It is time for Walker and Green to speak up. If they agree that those who honored the wishes of a permanently incapacitated Marine are "murderers," then they should say so. If they disagree, they should have the courage to condemn Pro-Life Wisconsin's over-the-top extremism.

While we're at it, let's make the same request of those who accepted the group's endorsement last year:

State Senators
Glenn Grothman R-West Bend
Mary Lazich R-New Berlin

State Representatives
Leah Vukmir R-Wauwatosa
Mark Honadel R-South Milwaukee
Bob Ziegelbauer D-Manitowoc
Steve Kestell R-Elkart Lake
Thomas Lothian R-Williams Bay
Joel Kleefisch R-Oconomowoc
Jeff Fitzgerald R-Horicon
Joan Ballweg R-Markesan
J.A. Hines R-Oxford
Debi Towns R-Janesville
Gabe Loeffelholz R-Platteville
Sheryl Albers R-Reedsburg
Carol Owens R-Oshkosh
Dan LeMahieu R-Oostburg
Mark Gottlieb R-Port Washington
Samantha Kerkman R-Burlington
Jeff Wood R-Chippewa Falls
Scott Suder R-Abbotsford
Mark Gundrum R-New Berlin
Jerry Petrowski R-Marathon
Judy Krawczyk R-Green Bay
Karl Van Roy R-Green Bay
Ann Nischke R-Waukesha

Feingold on the Dem Party and the war

Russ Feingold did an interview with a blogger Sunday on Iraq and the state of the Democratic Party. I was going to link to it, but Folkbum beat me to it and even pulled out the most salient paragraph. So I defer to him.

No fraud in cases "exposed" by GOP

UPDATE. Later post: "Republican fraud charges untrue, but they keep right on making them."

---

This from the Journal Sentinel online:

No fraud found in suspected double votes

U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic said today that investigators had found no evidence of voter fraud in nine cases of potential double voting cited earlier this month by the state Republican Party.

Rather, Biskupic said, the cases cited by the GOP involved sloppy bookkeeping or other recordkeeping errors. After using U.S. Postal Service change of address cards to attempt to track voters from city to city, the Republican Party sent the information to investigators who already were reviewing voter fraud in the Nov. 2 presidential election in Milwaukee. The GOP cited cases where people were recorded as having voted in Milwaukee as well as in Chicago, Madison and Minneapolis.

You may recall that news conference. It's the one when GOP Chairman Rick Graber and some GOP leggies stood in front of a house in Milwaukee that they said was connected to voter fraud. From the earlier story:

At the news conference outside a house in the 1600 block of N. Astor St., state GOP chairman Rick Graber was joined by state Rep. Jeff Stone (R-Greendale) and Sen. Joe Leibham (R-Sheboygan), sponsors of the photo ID bill.

They said one of the double voting cases involved the house, a two-unit condo.

"It is a system that invites fraud," Graber said. "It's a system that needs to be fixed."

While the party did not release names or addresses, the city lists three voters at the house where the news conference took place: Stuart and Gayle Schenk and their son Joseph, who moved to Chicago last August.

Both Stuart and Gayle Schenk said Joseph did not vote in Milwaukee or request an absentee ballot here. Gayle Schenk said her son is in Chicago studying to join the Franciscan order of the Roman Catholic Church.

So the Republican US Attorney appointed by President Bush says there is no fraud connected with that house or with any of the other eight cases touted by the GOP.

I assume the apology to the Schenks, the news media, and the voters of Wisconsin will be forthcoming soon. The only fraud perpetrated here was by the Republican Party, so caught up in its "voter fraud" witch hunt that it no longer cares about facts or evidence.

The same could be said for the media. Earlier post,, "Why the coverage on non-story?"

Told you so. Hate to say I told you so (actually, I love it), but here's an earlier post, "Nine may have voted twice -- or not."

Tommy for President? Again?

The Detroit Free Press reports:

Thompson considers run for U.S. presidency
August 20, 2005

Former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson acknowledged this week that he is considering a run for the White House in 2008 as an extension of his mission to improve the nation's health care.

"I can't think of anybody else as vocal on this issue as I have been," he said.

Elected four times as governor of Wisconsin, Thompson, a Republican, said that "anybody that's ever been in public office has thought about" being president.

He does not yet have a campaign staff, he said.

Excuse me, but I think this is where I came in. I've heard this tune before. As I recall, it sounded like a good idea to a lot of Republicans until they first time they saw him on television.

Hat tip: Political Wire.

Another assessment from MyDD.com:

Tommy Thompson. A new one on the list. Thompson's probably kidding himself if he thinks he's got a chance. To the extent that his experience as a Governor might help him, George Allen, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, George Pataki, and Haley Barbour can all claim the same thing. He told the Detroit Free Press that he wants to run to highlight healthcare issues. Again, as far as GOP candidates go, Frist, a surgeon, would seem to have the leg up there. Even Huckabee, who authored a best-selling weight loss book after dropping over 100 pounds himself can claim some advantage in that department. And there's also the matter of Thompson's now-infamous comments at the end of his tenure at HHS:

"I, for the life of me, cannot understand why the terrorists have not, you know, attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do," he said. "And we are importing a lot of food from the Middle East, and it would be easy to tamper with that."

That statement drew a huge amount of criticism for Thompson and seems to be the sort of thing that could sink him from a national security perspective in the primaries.

Talk of McCann retirement gives GOPdelusions of Milwaukee County grandeur

A report that Milwaukee DA E. Michael McCann may be thinking about packing it in when his term ends next year has politicos and courthouse types buzzing about possible successors.

McCann, who says he has not decided whether he will retire, appears to have given his blessing to the candidacy of one of his assistants, John Chisholm.

Republicans are talking, although it is hard to tell how seriously, about Republican radio talker Jeff Wagner, a former federal prosecutor. Wagner ran for state attorney general against Jim Doyle in 1994, losing statewide by almost 100,000 votes -- and losing Milwaukee County to Democrat Doyle 57-41% (a Libertarian got 1.4%.)

By the way, I still have my opposition research files on Wagner. Being a political pack rat has some advantages.

The conservatives argue things are different now. Scott Walker, a Republican, is the county executive -- but elected in a non-partisan election, and he squealed every time someone tried to make the 2004 race partisan. Conservative David Clarke is the sheriff, but he ran as a Democrat, and although he bashes the Dems will probably run as a Democrat again, because Republicans simply don't win partisan races in Milwaukee County.

Scott Walker tries to use his Milwaukee base to sell himself to Republican primary voters. His e-newsletter says:

Why should you support Scott Walker in the Primary?

Winning. In the past 20 years, the Republican candidate at the top of the ticket who carried Milwaukee County won statewide. In 1998, Tommy Thompson took 50% of the vote in Milwaukee County and carried 60% of the vote statewide. In 2002, Jim Doyle needed nearly 57% of the vote in Milwaukee County just to get 45% of the vote statewide. In 2004, Scott Walker received 58% of the vote in that same county. If we nominate him to face Jim Doyle, he will win. That's why the liberals are spending so much time attacking him.

Actually, Tommy and his cult of personality carried Milwaukee County twice, in 1990 against Tom Loftus, and in 1994 -- while Wagner was losing -- against Chuck Chvala, who got an anemic 31% statewide, the lowest in memory if not in history. In 1998, Tommy couldn't even carry the county against Ed Garvey, who did worse statewide than Loftus had.

Walker backers can delude themselves all they like, but he will not carry Milwaukee County in a general election for governor. He should win the GOP primary in his home county. I'd love to see Walker on the November ballot, but my money is on Mark Green to win the primary.

One timetable he sticks to;Bush breaks vacation record

And with three years left to go, he's likely to set a record that will stand forever. From PoliticalWire.

Feingold's simple suggestion focuses attention on tough questions

Sen. Russ Feingold's bold move, to up the ante on Iraq and set a target for US withdrawal, is making a lot of people very uncomfortable. And George W. Bush is just one.

You can see other members of Congress, in both parties, headed for their bunkers to shield themselves from incoming media questions.

You would think Feingold had done something radical, when in fact all he has done is to ask a simple question: What is our plan to get out of Iraq, and what is the target date?

He asked that open-ended question in June, introducing a resolution asking the President to establish a timetable to end US involvement. A modest proposal, to be sure, but even that went nowhere.

So now Feingold has gone the next step. If the President won't offer a target date -- and if the Congress won't even ask him to set one -- Feingold will offer his own.

December 31, 2006 is the date he chose. The President and his supporters say it's an abritrary date, and we can't have that. Well, why not? As Feingold pointed out on Meet the Press, we've picked deadlines for other events in Iraq:

This is what I've noticed in the other times that we've done things well in Iraq. This is what we've done. We've set a target date for the transfer of sovereignty, and we said it was a good thing that we did it a day early. We set a target date for elections, in January 31, and some people said it would never happen. When it happened, it was a good thing. We set a target date for the constitution, and it's taking a few days more, but when that constitution is achieved, it's going to be a wonderful thing for the Iraqi people and a step forward.

Why wouldn't you want a vision, an idea of when we can measure success in terms of time and when the American people can know that our brave and courageous men and women can come home? It seems better than just having a stay-the-course concept, which is what the president seems to have. . .

And the president has presented us with a false choice. It's either stay the course and cut and run. What I'm suggesting is we can have a middle course, a course that allows us for success in Iraq and allows us to return to the larger issue, which is the fight against terrorism all around the world.

That last is a key ingredient of what he's saying, but it gets lost in the shuffle. He believes the war in Iraq is hurting our larger effort, the war on global terrorism, and undermining US security. The Iraq war is making us less secure, he believes, and it is hard to argue.

Feingold says what he proposes isn't a deadline, but a target date. That is mostly semantics, but Feingold would leave room to adjust the date to reflect developments. Bush, Cheney & Co. insist that any deadline -- they prefer the term "arbitrary deadline" -- would simply tip our hand to the insugents and allow them to wait us out. (What are they doing now?)

Is that true of any date we might choose? If you don't like 2006, how about 2008? Do I hear 2010? Sometimes you get the feeling that it isn't the insurgents we're trying to keep the information from; it's the American people, who are getting more restive by the day. They aren't saying cut and run, but they are saying we made a mistake and should find a way out. The mood they're in, the end of 2006 may not be any too soon.

But if that's not the right date, how about a dialogue about what our plan is? Is there any intention to ever get our troops out? What are the prospects? If not in 16 months, how about 28 months? People are beginning to fear the answer is not 16 months but 16 years.

Having an orderly plan and target date to leave Iraq in a year or two is not "cut and run." No one is suggesting our troops leave now, in the middle of the night, with no warning. But Feingold is suggesting that discussion about an end date should be on the table. He calls it "breaking the taboo" about naming a date, or even talking about one.

The conservatives and chickenhawks say we disgraced ourselves by leaving Vietnam. Many Americans, including many of us who served there, feel that our real mistake was getting involved in the first place, compounded by staying there too long. That is one of many reasons that Iraq seems like Vietnam. We should have learned then that longer casualty lists are not the way to honor the dead, and that the best way to support the troops is to bring them home.

Do you support the troops or not? Are you with us or against us? Life is not that simple, even in Crawford, Texas these days.

Meanwhile, the Army's top general says the Army's planning for four more years in Iraq. “We are now into ’07-’09 in our planning,” Gen. Peter Schoomaker said, having completed work on the set of combat and support units that will be rotated into Iraq over the coming year for 12-month tours of duty. About 138,000 troops, including 25,000 Marines, are there now.

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran, scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000.

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC.

"Stay the course" is not a policy, Hagel said. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning." And he used the V-word about Iraq.

Even Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who followed Feingold on Meet the Press. -- and who said the U.S. is winning in Iraq -- said: "I do think we, the president, all of us need to do a better job, do more," by telling people "why we have made this commitment, what is being done now, what we do expect in the process and, yes, why it's going to take more time." AP story on Hagel, Lott, others.

Russ Feingold and Cindy Sheehan have focused our attention in the past week, and are making people think about what our country is doing in Iraq, and why.

I expect we will soon learn from Limbaugh, Drudge, Sykes, McBride et al. that Feingold has Communist ties, or at least was in the same room once with someone who does.

---

One problem with blogging is that it is too immediate and does not leave enough time for rumination. More later, after more rumination, on what this might mean politically in 06 and 08.

A point to ponder

Whether you consider yourself pro-union, anti-union, or neutral, would you fly on an airline if you knew its mechanics were on strike?

Feingold's "Meet the Press" interview

I falsely advertised Tim Russert, who was off on Sunday. Sen. Russ Feingold was featured on Meet the Press, but NBC's David Gregory filled in as host.

The video seems to have a glitch and ends about half way through the interview. Here is a link to a complete transcript.

More later.

Speak up to protect the Great Lakes;Hearing Monday night in West Allis

Now more than any time in recent memory, we have a chance to guarantee the long-term protection and sound management of the waters of the Great Lakes, insuring that they are not sold to the highest bidder and that they are protected for generations to come. The choices we make about how we protect land and water resources in our communities within the Great Lakes drainage basin affect the future of the Great Lakes themselves.

The water management agreement among Canadian provinces and US states -- including Wisconsin -- that border the Great Lakes is being amended for the first time since its creation in 1985, and that process is drawing to a conclusion.

Your only chance to attend a public meeting in southeast Wisconsin is Monday, August 22, on the State Fair Grounds.

The revised agreement is a good start towards improving the health of the Great Lakes and bringing about greater conservation of Great Lakes waters. But it needs to be strengthened.

The current draft creates a new category of community that will be eligible to apply for a diversion of water from a body of Great Lakes water, like Lake Michigan - - even if those communities are entirely outside the Great Lakes basin.

That creates the potential for permanent water losses from the Great Lakes basin. The City of Waukesha is interested in receiving Lake Michigan water. But it sends its treated wastewater down the Fox River, which flows to the Mississippi River and eventually to the Gulf of Mexico - - not to Lake Michigan. Because piping back wastewater to replenish the Great Lakes' source water would be very costly, Waukesha has already said it would seek an exemption from the return-flow requirement.

Another problem with the draft agreement is that it does not strongly regulate the export of bottled water from the Great Lakes. This is a growing problem, as brands such as "Ice Mountain," which originate inside the basin in Michigan, but are sold far from the region ,lead to permanent losses to Lake Michigan and thus the entire basin's ecosystem. (This would have been more of an issue in Wisconsin if Perrier had not been barred from bottling water here;after its rejection, the operation morphed into Nestle's Ice Mountain bottling plant in Michigan.)

The public meeting runs from 6:30 to 9 p.m. Aug. 22, at the Wisconsin State Fair Park Youth Center, Governor's Banquet Room, 640 South 84th Street. The nearest entrance to the Youth Center is south of Interstate 94 in West Allis through Gate 5. Parking is free. The meeting is hosted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

There is an open house from 6:30 to 7 p.m., during which you can fill out a comment form and talk to the DNR staff. They will make a formal presentation about the agreement and the revision process at 7 p.m., followed by public comment. An executive summary of the agreement, links to the entire agreement and an electronic form on which you can send in comments, is available here. Deadline for written comments is Aug. 29.

Clean Wisconsin has more information.

Cindy Sheehan in her own words

The Quakers have a term for standing up for what you believe in. They call it speaking truth to power.

It refers to the general concept of the child asking the Emperor "why aren't you wearing any clothes?" That is, that the truth often helps those in power stop deluding themselves.

In that spirit, read Cindy Sheehan's own words about what's going on at Camp Casey and in this country, written for Truthout.

Enough about Iraq; on to the important stuff

The White House press corps has a short attention span. From a press gaggle with Bush spokesperson Dana Perino:

Q: Senator Feingold, today, I think he became the first senator to call for a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq, he said by December 31, 2006. Your reaction?

MS. PERINO: Our reaction? The President has talked about this many times, as have many other members of the Defense Department, as well as other members of the Senate. The President believes that setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that we are not going to leave before completing the mission. It would also send the wrong message to our troops. We are serious about completing the mission, and they need to know that they have our full support. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who, as the President has said many times, would just then have to wait us out. So as the President has said, we're going to stay in Iraq as long as we're needed, but not a day longer.
Yes, Bob.

Q: What are the coverage plans for Lance Armstrong's visit on Saturday?

MS. PERINO: It is closed press. The White House will release a photograph. Discovery Channel has an exclusive to tapes and video.

---

That little exchange produced a "Bush rips Feingold plan" headline and story in the Capital Times and elsewhere, based on an AP report of the gaggle.

A worthy goal; think it will pass?

Bill designed to end
wrongful convictions

That's the headline on an AP story in the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram.

Who could be against it? No one, right? Wanna bet? Watch and see.

Is the war over? Norman Solomon v. Frank Rich

Frank Rich's New York Times column, "Someone Tell the President the War is Over," got a lot of attention this week, and made the rounds on e-mail and blogs. Rich concludes:

Thus the president's claim on Thursday that "no decision has been made yet" about withdrawing troops from Iraq can be taken exactly as seriously as the vice president's preceding fantasy that the insurgency is in its "last throes." The country has already made the decision for Mr. Bush. We're outta there. Now comes the hard task of identifying the leaders who can pick up the pieces of the fiasco that has made us more vulnerable, not less, to the terrorists who struck us four years ago next month.

Now, longtime activist and writer Norman Solomon responds, with "Someone Tell Frank Rich the War Isn't Over." AlterNet link. Says Solomon:

We're not "outta there" -- until an antiwar movement in the United States can grow strong enough to make the demand stick. And we're not there yet. Not by a long shot.

Green gets it wrong on Iraq -- again

We let Rep. Mark Green speak his piece about Sen. Feingold's proposal to set a target date to get US troops out of Iraq.

The thing is, Green actually got it wrong and attacked Feingold's "new legislation," although Feingold hasn't introduced anything new. He simply announced his thinking on the issue.

This week Feingold proposed a timeframe for the completion of the military mission in Iraq and suggested Dec. 31, 2006 as the target date.

Feingold said, "I am putting a vision of when this ends on the table in the hope that we can get the focus back on our top priority and that is keeping America and the American people safe.”

Feingold did introduce legislation in June, (apparently this is news to Green), a resolution calling for the President to clarify the military mission in Iraq, lay out a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission, and publicly articulate a plan for subsequent troop withdrawal. It did not specify a date.

So Green is apparently opposed to clarifying the military mission in Iraq, laying out a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission, and publicly articulating a plan for subsequent troop withdrawal.

The resolution, presented on June 14, calls on President Bush to report on the following within 30 days of Senate passage of the resolution;

Report on the Remaining Mission
The resolution calls for the President to report to Congress the remaining mission of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq. A sound strategic plan for United States military operations in Iraq would include information regarding the numbers of Iraqi troops that must be effectively trained and the amount of time that will be required to train them. The President, so far, has declined to set out specific goals for the U.S. military to achieve in Iraq.

Report on a Time Frame for the Remaining Mission
The resolution calls on the President to offer current estimates of the time frame required for the United States to achieve the remaining mission, including information regarding variables that could alter that time frame. Time frames for the transfer of sovereignty and for elections in Iraq resulted in real political and strategic advantages for the U.S. and have advanced the development of democracy in Iraq.

Report on a Time Frame for the Withdrawal of Troops
The resolution calls on the President to submit to Congress a time frame for the subsequent withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq. On April 13, 2004, President Bush stated that “as a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America” and that U.S. troops will remain in Iraq “as long as necessary and not one day more.” Establishing a clear time frame for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq would help to refute conspiracy theories and eliminate suspicions that obstruct the U.S. policy goals in Iraq and undermine the legitimacy of the Government of Iraq.

Feingold, Trent Lott on 'Meet the Press'

Russ Feingold, Trent Lott, Tim Russert -- what more could you ask? That's the Sunday lineup for "Meet the Press.

Marcia Ball: Report from Camp Casey

This from Marcia Ball, the Austin-based blues pianist and singer. Marcia and her husband, Gordon Fowler, a twice-wounded Marine veteran who served with me in Vietnam, visited Camp Casey in Crawford, Texas on Wednesday. She's on her way back this afternoon:

Dear friends,

This is a note which I hope you will pass along about Cindy Sheehan’s vigil in Crawford. As most of you know, Cindy had to leave yesterday because her mother had a stroke. Still, most of the people who had gathered around her there are continuing the demonstration.

There are Gold Star Mothers, Military Families Speak Out, Code Pink and many individuals who have lost family members in the war in Iraq or who have people serving there now. A land-owner close to the Bush “ranch” has opened his property to the Peace House movement, allowing the group to get out of the ditch beside the road.

Many people from all over the country and the world have been amazingly generous. Supplies come in regularly. Of course, funds are appreciated. Today, Sarah Brown and I are going to go play some music out at Camp Casey. My band offered to go but there is concern that this is not a celebration and that we need to be sensitive to the reasons behind the gathering. But what’s a protest without a folk-singer? If there is a stage, we’re going to hit it about 7PM. If not, we’re playing anyway.

There are rumors about Steve Earle, James McMurtry and even Joan Baez showing up during the weekend. Solid information is hard to come by. This is such a grass-roots event that people are pitching in for a day or a week, whatever they can do. It’s wonderful to see and the answer to my wish that there was something within reach that I could do that was louder than a bumper sticker on my car.

There it is.

There are quite a few websites with information including www.crawfordorbust.com and www.crawfordpeacehouse.org or you can Google crawfordorbust and get some blogs.

The real information that I can give is this:To get to Peace House from Austin, take I-35 to Belton and exit at Exit 293A, go left and follow signs for Highway 317. Take 317 north through Moody and McGregor and on up into Crawford. Once there, on 5th Street take a right and go over the railroad tracks. Peace House is on the left, hard to miss. They are shuttling people out to Camp Casey and this works quite well or they will give you directions. In the unlikely event that there’s nobody home at Peace House, go back on 5th Street which is Highway 185 and follow it west about 9 miles to Canaan Church Road. If you do this, though, parking may be a problem, there may be a long walk involved or you could be turned back.

You will notice, of course, that many of the neighbors are not enjoying our presence.

We hope that if you’ve wanted to make a statement against the war and in support of the troops, against the president and for our country you will come up to Crawford and stand with the mothers and fathers and veterans there. It may be a cluster but it’s a heartfelt expression of the will of an increasing majority of the American people and it’s in our backyard. We’re ragged but we’re right.

Thank you, Cindy.

Sincerely,

Marcia Ball

Quote, unquote

"If she did win, I'd do whatever she asked."

-- Bill Clinton, quoted by the Providence Journal, when asked what role he might play if Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) became president.


Anything? Bake cookies? Give a televised White House tour? Be the point person on national health insurance?

BoDeans yes, Naked Boys no

Millwaukee, the city that locked up George Carlin for aggravated potty mouth, has shut down the performance of "Naked Boys Singing," which is just what the title sounds like.

The mayor's office intervened to make sure hometown favorites the BoDeans could play an outdoor gig downtown, but the city bureaucracy and police department swung into action when a homophobic street preacher complained about the naked boys.

Technically, the show was shut down because the Gay Arts Center didn't have the right license. That must be why the police Vice Squad got involved.

Eye on Wisconsin reports that the gay community wonders whether this is the right police priority in the midst of a violent crime spree.

Green: Don't quit now; we're winning in Iraq

GREEN BAY – U.S. Rep. Mark Green (R-Green Bay) criticized new legislation by U.S. Senator Russ Feingold Thursday that would establish a deadline for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. Green, who has visited Iraq twice since Operation Iraqi Freedom began, issued the following statement in response to Feingold’s plan.

“As signs of progress continue to spring forth from Iraq, the terrorists and insurgents grow more and more desperate in their attempts to derail Iraq’s steady march toward democracy. They know that with every school built, every soldier trained, and every vote cast in the new Iraqi parliament, their campaign of fear and destruction grows weaker and weaker.

“There are certainly challenges that remain, and we all mourn each and every American who gives their life to protect our freedom. But, Senator Feingold’s legislation allows the insurgents to think that they are succeeding. It tells the insurgents that they need only continue their attacks and hold out a little longer and our forces leave. Plain and simple, setting such a deadline fuels their efforts, and undermines all the excellent work of our servicemen and women up to this point.

He mentioned his two quick trips to Iraq, but neglected again to mention his military service -- five days in the Navy.

Green's situation is much like Bush's. He is too stuck in the quagmire to extricate himself, despite the fact that the public has had enough. Just 38 percent of Americans in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll last week approved of Bush's handling of the war, the lowest point yet in that survey. More than half of those interviewed in a USA Today-CNN-Gallup poll said they now believe that it was a mistake to send U.S. troops into Iraq and that the war has made the United States less safe from terrorism; 56 percent supported withdrawing some or all troops now.

That could spell disaster for Green's candidacy for governor. He needs to stay the course to keep his base in the primary, presumably, but when it comes to the general electorate, he is marching to a different drummer -- the wrong one. And, yes, Bush foreign policy could be an issue in the governor's race.

Feingold is the first to propose a specific date for withdrawal, but Republicans are joining the chorus of criticism of US involvement in Iraq. Eye on Wisconsin wonders whether we should expect a Green press release blasting Sen. Chuck Hagel or Rep. Walter Jones, two Rs who are vocal on the issue.

UPDATE: Green gets it wrong again.

Trouble right here in Jefferson, with a Capital T and that rhymes with D and that stands for Dave

Well, a sympathetic post Tuesday about my old friend Dave Olsen certainly has stirred the pot.

Olsen is the Jefferson alderman who faces a recall after voting against annexation to clear the way for a Wal-Mart superstore.

I've known him for 17 years, and I don't think I've ever known anyone who didn't like him. Now I do.

It turns out there are at least a couple of people in Jefferson who think he's the devil. Maybe even literally.

One of them is John Foust, whose resume says he's an entrepreneur and Internet guy who "works well independently and remotely." It doesn't say whether he plays well with others. But he loathes Olsen and can rant about him for thousands of words, as evidenced by comments on this blog and Brian Christianson's Free Will blog, which also made the mistake of saying something positive about Olsen and less than positive about Wal-Mart. Free Will gives Jefferson John a little exposure here.

Among other pursuits, Foust is the president of GoJefferson.com, which bills itself as "The Center of the Internet in Jefferson County, Wis." That makes him the editor of a sort-of online newspaper and the unelected savior of the Jefferson area, although he doesn't actually live in Jefferson. [Update: Foust says in a comment to this post that he does live in Jefferson, although his resume didn't show that.]But that still leaves him plenty of time to trash Olsen, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. (I expect he will explain in another comment.)

Meanwhile, another party heard from was the candidate who lost the Jefferson mayor's race by three votes a year ago, who also has a blog, called Forward Jefferson. He says he's "staying above the fray." Good luck.

I'm not going to get into a point-by-point debate with Foust about Olsen. He claims to have hundreds of documents showing Olsen's a bad guy. It is hard for me to understand, if Olsen is Darth Vader, how he got the most votes of the four aldermen elected to the council just 16 months ago. There is an explanation -- no one ran against him. Why on earth would John Foust and the good people of Jefferson elect Darth Vader to the city council unopposed? Foust says Olsen's been an outlaw for years, but he was elected by acclamation?

The other thing that doesn't ring true is Foust's insistence that Wal-Mart's not behind the recall. I don't think John Walton is lying awake nights thinking about how to get even with Dave Olsen. (He leaves that to Foust). But the recall clearly is about the Wal-Mart vote and not about some open meeting violation, real or imagined (as Paul Bucher might say). The same woman who headed the pro-Wal-Mart citizen's group is leading the recall effort. She may not be taking orders from Wal-Mart headquarters, but let's not pretend this vote is about something else.

Foust asks why Wal-Mart would bother to recall Olsen when he has to run next April anyway. You might wonder why the citizens group doesn't just wait until April and try to beat him. My guess it's because with Olsen gone and a Wal-Mart backer in his place, Wal-Mart will be back knocking on the council's door this fall. And this time, if Olsen loses, there won't be anyone to yield his time to the opponents. It will be a railroad job.

---

If you'd like to help David beat Goliath, send a campaign contribution to Olsen for Alderman, 117 E. Dodge St., Jefferson WI 53549. Or if you want to volunteer to help Olsen in other ways -- phones, door-to-door, literature drops, whatever -- you can e-mail him at olsen@jefnet.com

---

On a related note, Wal-Mart is running into more than a little resistance in New York City, as the Village Voice reports.

Mail that brings tears after Marine's death.

Susan Lampert Smith, whose Wisconsin State Journal column first told the public about Pro-Life Wisconsin's vicious and heartless attack on the family and caregivers of a Marine who died after being critically wounded in Iraq, writes about the response to that column:

It isn't too often that my mail makes me cry.

But that was how it went this week as friends and family of the late Marine Staff Sgt. Chad Simon called and wrote to thank me for my column Saturday about Pro-Life Wisconsin's horrifying attack on the hospice center that cared for him.

(In case you missed it, the Pro-Lifers put out a press release claiming that Simon was "murdered by those in charge of his medical care" because his feeding tube was removed when it was clear that he was not going to recover from a severe brain injury.)

I also heard from hospice workers, who wrote and talked about being moved by the devotion of his family during the long eight months between when the roadside bomb exploded in Iraq in November and his death on Aug. 4.

"The love we saw from his family touched us all," one worker wrote. "We will long remember and never forget him. He is burned in our hearts forever."

A high school friend of Chad Simon's wrote: "Chad made his wishes known before he left, and knowing Chad, he never would have wanted to exist in the condition he was in. . . . he trusted that Regina (his wife) would have the strength and love for him to carry out his wishes if the day ever came, and she did."

I heard from Regina Simon, too, and the pain in her voice is indescribable.

Despite what Pro-Life Wisconsin would have you believe, no one makes end-of-life decisions lightly. The people charged with legal power- of-attorney are saying goodbye to the loves of their lives, to their parents, to their best friends. Many families, like the Simons, are deeply religious and make these choices only after much prayer.

As hard as it is, most of want someone who loves us and knows us making those choices.

Pro-Life did back off on its most inflammatory charge, and I do have to give them credit for raising an issue that troubles many people. Peggy Hamill of Pro-Life says her group's position is that "food and water are basic human rights," and that advanced directives shouldn't be used to cause death by removing them.

I disagree. The whole purpose of advanced directives is to give people some sense of control over their own destinies. One of the most moving letters on Chad Simon came from a Madison woman named Ellen Esser.

Like all of us, she's going to die.

Unlike most of us, she's put some thought into it since being diagnosed with incurable ovarian cancer in 2001. She has both a living will and a health-care power of attorney, a legal document PLW called "a suicide note."

"What a slap in the face to the Simon family and all families . . . who have carefully chosen what we wish and what we don't wish in case of severe illness and injury," Esser wrote. "How dare they call what I have a suicide note?"

I called Esser, who is still doing well despite her diagnosis, and we talked about both our desires to have some control over our last hours.

Here's what she had to say:

"I hope they will learn that pro-life means letting go, as well and that pro-life should be respectful. I hope that this group is no where near hospice when I die."

A piece I posted here earlier has more details and a link to her original column.

Cindy Sheehan leaves Crawford

Cindy Sheehan has left Crawford, Tex. after receiving word that her 74-year-old mother had suffered a stroke in California.

Sheehan told supporters she would be back "as soon as possible, if it's possible."

Now we will see whether the spark she struck will kindle a peace movement that goes beyond one mother's grief and moves us toward ending the war.

The sliming of Cindy Sheehan, Chapter 2McBride joins the McCarthyism revival

Joseph Welch, left, asks Sen. Joseph McCarthy: "Have you no decency?"

The Republican effort to discredit Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother who lost a son in Iraq, knows no bounds. As her lonely vigil begins to look like the beginnning of a real anti-war movement, the anti-Sheehan rhetoric gets more shrill and the attacks get more vicious.

WTMJ Radio's Charlie Sykes was one of the first to spread the red-baiting of Sheehan,doing his best Joe McCarthy imitation to try to link her to Communists, as I reported here and here last week.

Today, Jessica McBride joins the McCarthyism Squad, relying on Slimemeister Drudge for this Six Degrees of Separation smear of Sheehan:

Among the organizations aligned with Sheehan in Crawford is a group called Code Pink and one of its leaders, radical activist Medea Benjamin, who once praised living in Communist Cuba as "heaven." Sheehan has openly written on her Web Site of the help from Code Pink. One Web Site says of Benjamin:

Many of the causes that Ms. Benjamin espouses are Communist in nature. For instance, most of the major anti-war demonstrations at which she has spoken were organized by the Workers World Party , a Marxist-Leninist organization that openly supports Kim Jong Il's dictatorship in North Korea and proudly proclaims its dedication to "fight[ing] against capitalism" in America's "racist, sexist society." In years past, she vehemently opposed U.S. military aid to those fighting against Communist forces in Central America. Passionately anti-capitalist, Benjamin is widely credited as a chief organizing force behind the 1999 Seattle riots in which 50,000 protesters did millions of dollars worth of property damage in their effort to
shut down meetings of the World Trade Organization. During the last week of December 2004, Benjamin announced in Amman, Jordan that Global Exchange, Code Pink, and Families for Peace would be donating a combined $600,000 in medical supplies and cash to the terrorist insurgents who were fighting American troops in Fallujah, Iraq.

I don't use the McCarthy comparison lightly. It is not a term I throw around. But in this case it is entirely appropriate. The tactics and techniques of guilt by association are all too familiar. What's going on is McCarthyism, pure and simple. Matt Rothschild at The Progressive has been posting some of the hateful rhetoric from right-wing Internet sites, which will turn your stomach.

I asked Sykes last week the famous question asked of Joe McCarthy: Have you no decency? He didn't respond or defend himself, although he reads this blog.

Jessica, it's your turn. Have you no decency?

Quote, unquote

Fox News says Cindy Sheehan has become a tool of the left. Fox News: calling someone a political tool. -- Will Durst, The Progressive.

Walker weirdness

That's the title of a Capital Times editorial on Scott Walker's attempt to link photo ID cards for voters with efforts to control the manufacture of methamphetamine by requiring identification from people buying cold medicine which can be used to make meth.

It had this to say of Walker:

Yet the gubernatorial candidate still succeeded in belittling both the defense of democracy and the fight against dangerous drugs in a single partisan press release - no small accomplishment, even for so ambitious and irresponsible a politician as Walker.

There is no question that Walker is under a great deal of stress. His campaign for the Republican gubernatorial nomination is not going all that well, and the county he is supposed to be managing is again running substantial budget deficits. But the real test of any executive is his or her ability to maintain sound judgment even in stressful times.

Walker's bumbling attempt to attack Doyle - on the grounds that the governor wants to maintain access to the ballot box and limit access to materials for making dangerous drugs - suggests that he is failing that test. Miserably.

The Capital Times might be surprised to learn that Walker isn't the only Republican making that absurd comparison. Republican radio talkers Sykes and Wagner (and maybe Belling, but I never hear him) have done the same. Must be part of the GOP's talking points.

Extremists' behavior in Marine's death deserves much more media attention

I've written about this before, in a perfunctory sort of way, but is is one of those stories that continues to eat at me, for a whole range of reasons.

It surfaced in Madison last week, when a so-called "pro-life" group savaged the grieving family of a Marine who died after being critically injured in Iraq.

The group, Pro-Life Wisconsin, charged Hospice Care with murdering him, because it followed his directions in a living will and allowed him to die.

His name was Chad Simon, and he was a Marine staff sergeant from Monona. He suffered a severe brain injury while serving in Iraq when a roadside bomb exploded, injuring Simon and killing three other Marines from his Madison-based Reserve unit.

This military website,BlackFive, has the whole tragic and moving story about what the Simon family went through in the nine months after he was injured last November. If you read the linked Journal Sentinel story about his death, you will find:

The Simons were active in their church and coordinated the church's Sunday school classes.

"Chad was just devoted to the Bible, devoted to living out God's word," friend Matt Meyers said.

You will also find that this religious Marine, knowing the risks of his mission in Iraq, had left instructions about what to do if he were unable to make his own medical decisions.

Regina Simon had a feeding tube removed from her husband about two weeks ago, in accordance with wishes he expressed before he was wounded, said the Rev. Jeff Mannel, pastor at Madison Church of Christ, and a close family friend.

"He did have a living will, and it was very explicit," Mannel said. "There was nothing to question."

Nothing to question, that is, unless you were Pro-Life Wisconsin, a holier-than-thou group of extremists who issued a vile press release which said:

Sgt. Simon died on August 4th, but he did not die from his injuries. Instead, he was intentionally dehydrated to death by the hospice center charged with his care.

"Sgt. Simon was a victim of two different faces of the culture of death. He was certainly a victim of international terrorism, but he was also a victim of America's rapidly decaying system of 'hospice' care," said Peggy Hamill, State Director of Pro-Life Wisconsin. "Sgt. Simon died of dehydration, not from any sort of brain injuries. Sgt. Simon was rendered handicapped by the bomb in Iraq, he was murdered by those who were in charge of his medical care."

Sgt. Simon had filled out a "living will" stipulating that he did not wish to receive food and water if he were rendered permanently incapacitated.

Then, incredibly, the group goes on to plug its own power of attorney for health care, one that says no one can ever make a decision that will cause your death.

In an e-mail to its subscriber list, Pro-Life Wisconsin accused the media of a coverup:

For the most part, the secular media white-washed Sgt. Simon's death. Both the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal (sic) and the Madison Capital Times mentioned that Sgt. Simon was sent to hospice care, but they conveniently neglected to mention that his injuries were not life-threatening. [Surgeons had removed two-thirds of his skull, and he had been unconscious for nine months.]

When they discussed the cause of his death, they both reported that he died of injuries sustained from the roadside blast in Iraq. Of course, that is plainly false. Sgt. Simon died of dehydration, not from any sort of brain injuries. Sgt. Simon was rendered handicapped by the bomb in Iraq, he was murdered by those who were in charge of his medical care.

Perhaps one of the most tragic aspects of this whole episode was the role that his own living will played in determining his fate. Sgt. Simon had evidently filled out a "living will" stipulating that he did not wish to receive food and water if he were rendered permanently incapacitated.

Julie Grimstad, Pro-Life Wisconsin's expert on End of Life issues has given several presentations on the dangers inherent with so-called living wills. Sgt. Simon's death is a perfect example of how these documents can be used as death licenses. "When you fill out a living will, and you check these little boxes, you may be signing your own suicide note," said Julie. "This may be legal, but it's most certainly immoral."

Julie sees cases like Sgt. Simon, where there is a living will supposedly stipulating that food and water be withheld, as a first step toward euthanizing the disabled.

"Killing people in a medical setting lends an air of legitimacy to this cruel and inhumane way of eliminating disabled people whose lives are deemed 'not worth living.' Terri Schiavo and Chad Simon are cases in point."

When Hospice Care threatened a lawsuit, the group retracted and rewrote its press release to eliminate the murder charge, but would not apologize. The highly quotable Peggy Hamill had nothing to say to the Capital Times.

I, too, fault the media coverage. When a group like Pro-Life Wisconsin makes claims that outrageous, I'd say the media has an obligation to report them. Maybe some editors decided this group was just looking for publicity, so they weren't going to give them any. If that's what happened, it was a judgment call -- bad judgment.

This is a group that wields a lot of influence in the state Capitol and endorses candidates for office. Twenty-five members of the current legislature were endorsed by Pro-Life Wisconsin in their campaigns last year.

They act as though they are a mainstream group, when they are clearly lunatic fringe. But unless the media reports on this kind of misguided, loathsome activity, the public will be in no position to make a judgment.

Maybe this got more attention in Madison than I realize, but it appears to me that Susan Lampert Smith was the first to blow the whistle on them in a Wisconsin State Journal column, where she wrote:

Jack Schuster, the family's attorney, said Regina Simon made the decision after much soul-searching. A judge OK'd the removal of the feeding tube.

"It was all done legally. If they want to debate the morality, who are they to judge?" Schuster asked. "Hospice provided the highest level of loving care. To accuse them of murdering him is the height of immorality."

Schuster said Regina Simon wondered why Pro-Life, "if they were really so concerned about my husband, why didn't they contact the family before he died?"

Well, because it's not about Chad Simon.

It's about a group of publicity-hungry hard-liners that lost its favorite poster girl when Terri Schiavo died this spring.

It's not like their allies didn't try to stir the pot. Someone from the Alliance for Life Ministries sent e-mails to the Madison media before Chad Simon died, making allegations about his care.

We ignored them.

I'd like to ignore this, too, but it's so egregious.

The Milwaukee media has managed to ignore the story. Not a word about the outrageous claims by Pro-Life Wisconsin, as far as I can find.

This is one of those times when you can appreciate the power of Repubican radio. (A friend says we should quit calling it right-wing radio or talk radio or conservative radio. Let's just call it what it is. Republican radio.)

Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot. Say some liberal group was criticizing the doctors for keeping him alive despite his wishes in the living will, in which he asked to be allowed to die.

It would be all over Republican radio and in all likelihood would be a national story, with Rush, O'Reilly and the rest of the rabid Republican rat pack all over it, keeping it alive and fanning the flames. Remember Terri Schiavo? How could we forget?

They'd talk about it long enough that even the Journal Sentinel might decide it had to do a story to let the public know about Pro-Life Wisconsin, its ideas and its tactics. If people knew this story, I think they would have no trouble deciding who holds the moral high ground.

Feingold wants troops out of Iraq by end of 2006

US News reports that Sen. Russ Feingold will call Thursday for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq by Dec. 31, 2006.

He had called in June for a timetable for withdrawal, but did not propose a specific date.

Craig Gilbert at Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has it, too, as does the Washington Post.

Excerpts from US News:

Feingold, who is exploring a run for the presidency in 2008, told U.S. News: "I believe I am the first senator [to set a deadline]. It says: Here is the date by which we ought to finish the mission." . . .

Feingold also said that many within his own party are afraid of demanding a withdrawal of troops from Iraq for fear of being branded unpatriotic or anti-military.
"I call what I am doing breaking the taboo," Feingold said. "The senators have been intimidated and are not talking about a timeframe. We have to make it safe to go in the water and discuss this. A person shouldn't be accused of not supporting troops just because we want some clarity on our mission in Iraq."

While Feingold is aware some will accuse him of playing into the hands of the insurgents and strengthening terrorism, he says the Iraq war has made America less and not more safe.

"The president's policy in Iraq has played into the hands of the terrorists," he said. "Iraq is now the principal training ground for terrorists."

While Feingold is proposing a deadline for American troop withdrawal, he says it can be a flexible deadline.

"It's a target date," he said. "If we believe we need a little more time we may have to continue [in Iraq].

Feingold will announce his deadline Thursday at a "listening session" in Marquette, Wis.

"The concern about the Iraq war is very, very deep," Feingold said. "What we have now is sort of directionless policy with no real sense of how this ends. A deadline will help us a great deal to stabilize the situation in Iraq."

The good old days

Lifted in its enirety from DailyKos.

Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

Funny thing is, we won that war without a single killed in action.

-- Bill Day, Memphis Commercial Appeal (Click to enlarge)

Law and order returns to Iraq

No constitution yet, but, hey, we got hangings!

The New York Times reports:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 16 - Three men convicted of dozens of rapes, kidnappings and killings in the southern city of Kut, in one case displaying the eyeballs of an Iraqi soldier to obtain payment for his murder, will be put to death by hanging in the first execution by Iraq's civilian courts since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said Tuesday.

The case against the men, who acted in concert, is one of 34 in which death sentences have been handed down since the death penalty was reinstated in Iraq in August 2004. It is the first case to emerge from a mandatory review by an appeals court and be sent to Mr. Jaafari and a three-member council headed by President Jalal Talabani. The council must approve the execution before it can take place.

The combination of a shaky government eager to show that it is taking steps against terrorism and overwhelming public support for the death penalty here could make the Kut case the first of many executions in Iraq. That could include Mr. Hussein's. He is expected to go on trial within the next two months before a special tribunal for crimes against humanity.

Well, OK, there may be a few problems with the system:

Human rights advocates say that Iraq's legal system is often too flimsy to be fair. Beatings and other abuses are routinely used to produce confessions. Defendants see their lawyers rarely, or not at all, before trial. Judges are often under tremendous pressure to impose the death penalty. And, eager to strike back at insurgent attackers, Iraqi security forces have cast wide nets to round up suspects, increasing the risk that innocents will be put to death.

"There are too many things that can go wrong," said Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East Division for the group Human Rights Watch in Washington, D.C.

Immediate questions have arisen in the Kut trial, where at least three family members identified the defendants by saying that they had seen at least some of them confess to the killings on television. Mr. Jasim acknowledged that the Interior
Ministry, over Justice Ministry objections, regularly puts defendants on a popular television program that shows criminals confessing to crimes before trial, often with visible bruises on their faces.

Sort of like a reality TV show called, "Confession," where instead of "You're fired!" the final word is, "You will lbe hanged by the neck until dead." No wonder it's popular. Look for it in the US soon, probably on Fox.

Mr. Jasim said that once the defendants are on trial, they always repudiate their televised confessions, and judges are obliged to ignore what they have seen outside the courtroom. "We don't consider that as evidence," Mr. Jasim said.

The death penalty has enormous resonance in Iraq, where Mr. Hussein set up special courts to issue death sentences with no appeal. The executions were generally carried out at the clanging metal gallows of Abu Ghraib prison. Iraqi law still specifies that the death penalty is carried out by hanging for civilians and firing squad for soldiers, said Jaafar Nasser Hussain, an Iraqi Supreme Court justice.

After the 2003 invasion, the death penalty was suspended by the American-led administration in Iraq. But in August 2004, Prime Minister Ayad Allawi reinstated it.

Maureen Dowd :'Biking toward nowhere'

Maureen Dowd's column,on point, as usual.

Like father, like son. Neither Bush lets a little thing like a war get in the way of play time.

Let the campaign begin

Senator Herb Kohl is getting into re-election mode. Today he announced his new website.

Now all that's lacking is an opponent. (Don't tell him I said so; I don't think he agrees.)

Gard, McCormick candidates forGreen's 'Victory in Iraq' caucus?

Craig Gilbert's Sunday Journal Sentinel story looked at the field in the 8th Congressional District, where there is an open seat because Green is running for governor.

Republicans John Gard and Terri McCormick on the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq:

Gard, the GOP state Assembly speaker, said he doesn't second-guess going to war and supports Bush's policies there.

"Is every decision correct? Probably not (and) all of us would love to see this get done as soon as possible," said Gard, while adding:

"I think it's important for Americans to stand with their troops, to stand unified as a country in the effort, and to make sure you don't cut and run. . . . God help us if we ever run a war based on a poll."

McCormick said she would like to "hasten" the exit from Iraq.

"None of us like to be nation-builders. That's not necessarily characteristic of the Republican Party, either," she said.

But she said she didn't think it was appropriate for Congress to call for troop withdrawals.

Green has been one of the biggest cheerleaders for the war. Left unanswered was the big question: Would Gard or McCormick be members of the "Victory in Iraq" caucus started by Green? Wanna bet by this time next year they are talking about everything but Iraq?

Today's Republican non-sequitur

RPW CHAIRMAN RICK GRABER STATEMENT RE: MORE CHARGES OF VOTER FRAUD

“Federal prosecutors have charged four more people with voting illegally in last year’s November election bringing the total number of people charged in connection with voter fraud to sixteen. These charges come on the heels of new evidence of alleged voter fraud that we handed over to federal authorities last week.

“In typical fashion, Governor Doyle vetoed photo ID, a common sense measure that would have provided real reform, on a Friday afternoon. His refusal to address the fraud that has permeated our election system is disingenuous at best.”

Doyle's being disingenuous? Excuse me, but these four felons voted under their own names or they wouldn't be charged. How exactly would a photo ID have prevented this "fraud?"

Vrakas cocaine conviction -- a non-issue?

The apparent Waukesha County Executive-to-be, State Rep. Dan Vrakas, was busted for cocaine use 21 years ago, when he was 28.

Bruce Murphy at Milwaukee Magazine publicized it this week, but Vrakas and his conservative backers like Charlie Sykes and Jessica McBride were primed to defend him. The case had been covered previously, so it was not a surprise that it surfaced again. Today the Journal Sentinel picked up the story.

No big deal, the Vrakas backers say. Long time ago. Old news. I agree, but can't help but wonder: Do you think the same standard would apply to a Democrat -- Jim Doyle? Peg Lautenschlager? Kathleen Falk? Tom Barrett?

Most puzzling was this line from Sykes:

All of which leads to the conclusion, that the story will not hurt Vrakas and will likely backfire if the left tries to use it against Vrakas in the campaign.

The left? Vrakas' only opponent so far is Jim Dwyer, the Waukesha County Board chairman and fellow Republican. Maybe Sykes considers Dwyer the left because he has opposed a tax freeze and the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights in the past. But if the Dwyer campaign is the left, where does that put the rest of us?

Correction: Green's no Chickenhawk, just a modest military veteran

I did Mark Green an injustice, and I want to make amends.

I recently called him a Chickenhawk, one of those guys who beat the drums for war when they have never been to war themselves, and haven't even served in the military.

It's not uncommon for guys with no military background to claim they're veterans. One of the Vietnam Marine vets I hang out with loves to expose those phonies. Just last week, there was a story about a guy posing as a retired two-star Marine Corps general, when he actually never got past PFC.

Rare, however, is the military veteran -- especially one in political office -- who hides his military service instead of bragging about it, or at least acknowledging it.

Congressman Mark Green is one of that rare breed.

His modesty might stem from the fact that his career was rather short -- five days. His enlistment was supposed to be for six years.

That could be why he denied ever being in the military at all, when asked about it by the Journal Sentinel's Katherine Skiba in 2001. I'll let her tell the story:

After graduating from the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire in 1983, U.S. Rep. Mark Green attended the Navy's Aviation Officer Candidate School, dropping out after five days.

But he denied this when initially asked.

"I never entered the armed forces or that program," Green said. "I never entered the Navy . . . I never started the program. "I thought about joining the Navy; never did."

In fact, Green signed up for the Naval Reserves in September 1982, his senior year in college, and was selected for the Aviation Officer Candidate School. His initial enlistment was to be for six years.

The next June, Green entered the famed aviation officer training school in Pensacola, Fla. The school was depicted in the 1982 movie "An Officer and a Gentleman."

Green received an honorable discharge five days later.

Confronted with a Navy confirmation that he had served, Green said:

"I did go to Pensacola . . . (but) I never took courses, never took training, never took exercises."

He said he left after a few days when he realized he could not pursue Navy flying and law studies at the same time. Green went on to become a lawyer.

Green released his military file to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last week.

His father, a physician in Green Bay, once was an aspiring pilot. Jeremy Green thinks his son entered the aviation program more for his father's sake than his own.

Asked if he'd learned from the experience, Mark Green said: "It taught me to be less of a dreamer, and maybe a little more focused on my plans. It was part of the growing up process, I guess."

The Navy says its Officer Candidate School is "intense . . . extremely demanding, both physically and mentally."

"Only those with a strong desire to become Naval Officers will successfully complete Officer Candidate School," a Navy Web page notes.

OK, it's old news, I guess. But it was news to me. And it does raise a couple of questions:

How on earth could anyone think he could go to Navy flight school and law school at the same time? I find that just a tad hard to believe.

And how do you get one of those honorable discharges after five days?

I could imagine telling one of my drill instructors: "Sir, the private did not understand how difficult and demanding boot camp would be, sir, and requests an honorable discharge. The private does not seem to be cut out for this program, and would like to return to journalism school, sir."

To which my DI would have replied: "Shut your piehole, you slimy little puke. If I want any shit from you, I will unscrew your head and dip it out. Now get down and give me some squat thrusts until I tell you to stop."

Of course, we weren't officers or gentlemen. Maybe that's the difference.

So, to Congressman Green, founder of the Victory in Iraq Caucus in Congress, I say: Don't hide your light under a bushel. Put your military service in your resume, talk about it in your speeches, join the American Legion. You've earned it. You're no Chickenhawk, no sir. You are a warrior, and I will listen to your views on victory in Iraq with all of the respect they deserve.

Why the coverage on non-story?

Bruce Murphy of Milwaukee Magazine, late of the Journal Sentinel, asks:

What in the world is going on at the Journal Sentinel?

His online column points out that a Republican news conference to make unproven claims of voter fraud was covered as though it was real news.

He concludes:

The whole thing smacks of McCarthyism, of making reckless and unproven accusations against an innocent party. I suspect[GOP Chair Rick] Graber may already regret having handled the news conference this way. Partisanship often leads to overreaching. But the media is supposed to be our bulwark against such manipulation. How could the Journal Sentinel treat this trumped-up non-event as a news story?

My theory is that it is because the paper is invested in the "voter fraud" story and has the reporter who is also invested in it do the coverage, which results in a rehash every time of everything they have written about before. (The story in question was 37 inches long.)

Someone there still thinks the "voter fraud" coverage is going to win a prize. If column inches count, maybe it will.

Legislator raises every cent of his campaign funds outside of district

Most politicians worry about publilc perceptions when they are raising campaign contributions -- how will it look when I file my finance report?

Most make a real effort to balance big checks with lots of smaller contributions, and to make sure that a reasonable amount of the money comes from people in the district they represent.

Sen. Russ Feingold has gone so far as to make pledges, in past campaigns, about how much money he'll accept from non-Wisconsin donors versus in-state contributors.

So it's refreshing to see that State Sen. Ron Brown (R-Eau Claire) has taken a new approach. It's something like "Perception be damned!" Or maybe it's "The public be damned!"

Those pesky Democrats have discovered that during the first six months of 2005, Brown raised $11,000 -- and not a penny of it came from his Eau Claire area Senate district. He didn't even bother to hold a small-dollar fundraiser in his district. His average contribution was a whopping $475.

Where did the money come from? Of the total, $9500 was from individuals, all in checks of at least $250. A pro-school choice conduit passed through $5,600 to Brown, including $1700 from Milwaukeean Howard Fuller and his wife, Deborah McGriff. The other $3,900 in conduit money was from people in California, Michigan, and Virginia.

Then there are the Waltons, and I don't mean John-Boy and Elizabeth. The Wal-Mart, school choice Waltons, whose addresses are in Wyoming and Arkansas, kicked in $3,900. That's chicken feed to a Walton, but quite a bit of dough for a State Senator who's not raising any money anywhere else.

So why this big investment in Ron Brown from school choice advocates? No one has tied it to a specific vote -- yet. Maybe it hasn't been cast; this could be an investment in the future. There is no doubt a string attached.

Brown also accepted $1500 in political action committee money, $500 from CitiCorp and $1000 from the Wisconsin Builders. Brown's report.

No Recruit Left Behind; The Do-Not-Recruit List

The No Child Left Behind bill signed by President Bush has some other provisions just coming to some people's attention, as military recruiters step up their efforts to fill quotas for the seemingly endless war in Iraq.

Under the education bill signed by President Bush in 2002, schools must provide military recruiters with student contact information -- including home address and telephone number -- or lose federal funding.

You know what comes next. Recruiters begin calling or knocking on the door.

It turns out there is an easy, but unpublicized, way to prevent that. The LA Times reports that parents can ask in writing that their sons' and daughters' info not be provided to the military. In California, there are efforts underway to let parents know about that option.

Quote, unquote

"I think I'll wake up some morning and say, 'Enough is enough. I'm tired of Tom DeLay telling me when to go to bed at night.' I'm not there now."

-- Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO), quoted by the Rocky Mountain News, in response to questions about his possible retirement.


Hat tip:
Political Wire.

David v. Goliath in Jefferson; You might want to bet on David

There's a big battle brewing in Jefferson, where supporters of a Wal-Mart superstore are trying to recall one of the aldermen whose vote helped defeat the project.

Let's disclose my biases up front. I know and like the alderman in question, David Olsen. I don't like what Wal-Mart is doing to small town America.

Olsen grew up in Jefferson, left for awhile to work in politics and government, but came back to help run the family funeral home. He also worked for the local Chamber of Commerce and the city's development office before being elected an alderman in April, 2004. Aldermen are elected city-wide, and he was the highest vote-getter of the four winners.

When Wal-Mart's planned superstore was turned down by Fort Atkinson, it moved down the road and came knocking on Jefferson's door. It proposed a 22-acre development, a 158,000-square foot superstore, on land adjacent to the city. Part of the plan was for Jefferson to annex the 22 acre parcel.

It split the community of Jefferson down the middle. An anti-Wal Mart group, the Coalition for a Better Jefferson, formed to oppose the development. Soon, a pro-Wal Mart group, the Coalition for the Best Jefferson, formed, too, and battle lines were drawn.

It was a classic economic development vs. quality of life debate and it raged for months. It is also a classic case of small town politics at its worst.

When the first vote came in April, the city council voted 5-3 against annexing the site. But Wal-Mart supporters kept the pressure on, and there were enough votes to reconsider. On June 7, the vote switched to 5-3 in favor of annexation. But it required two-thirds, or six votes, to pass, so the annexation was defeated. Wal-Mart said the project was dead, but Olsen says it has renewed its option to purchase the property, so there may be some life there yet.

A month later, a petition drive to recall Olsen was launched, and enough signatures have been filed to force an election. Olsen says he won't challenge the signatures.

He is the only one of the three "no" votes targeted for recall because the other two aldermen were just elected in April, and no recall can be started until they have served a year. Aldermen only serve two-year terms, so Olsen would have been on the ballot next April anyway, but the Wal-Mart supporters couldn't wait.

What was Olsen's crime? The petitions first said he had violated the open meetings law and wasn't acting in the best interest of Jefferson. They later toned it down to say he may have violated the law.

His crime was to yield his time at a council meeting to allow some members of the public to speak in opposition to Wal-Mart. The agenda called only for a Wal-Mart presentation, not public response. Wal-Mart wanted to make its case, get the vote, and go home. But Olsen thought the other side should have a chance to be heard. Pretty serious violation; he's lucky he's not in jail.

Is Wal-Mart behind the recall? Olsen thinks so, but there's no proof. But Wal-Mart's supporters certainly are. A Journal Sentinel story reports:

. . .Charlotte Goers-Nevin, a 69-year-old retiree, launched a grass-roots organization in support of the multinational corporation and called it Coalition for the Best Jefferson.

"The number one complaint of the older people is they don't have a place to shop," she said. "Wal-Mart was going to be a good tax base for us, and it was going to be nice for the older people."

Goers-Nevin spoke regularly in support of Wal-Mart at Common Council meetings, collected 2,118 signatures in support of the store and persuaded aldermen to pull city legal notices from the Daily Jefferson County Union because of its editorial opposition of Wal-Mart.

In May, aldermen switched the city's legal notices from the Union to the Watertown Daily Times, even though the Union sells nearly five times as many papers in Jefferson than the Times.

Mayor Collin Stevens said the switch was made in response to the Union's anti-Wal-Mart editorial stance.

"The council members didn't think they were getting an accurate printing, and they didn't appreciate the editorials that were anti-Wal-Mart," he said.

The Union's managing editor, Christine Spangler, said she expects the switch to cost the paper about $15,000, a lot for a paper with a circulation of about 7,800. But she said the Union's circulation has increased since coverage of the issue began.

On July 6, Goers-Nevin launched the recall effort against Olsen. . . Olsen's infraction, she said, was letting the Wal-Mart opponents talk at a public meeting between aldermen and Wal-Mart executives, though the meeting notice stated the public would not be able to speak.

But no open-meetings complaint has been filed with Jefferson County District Attorney David Wambach, and Kelly Kennedy, a spokesman for the state attorney general, said the office reviewed one complaint on the matter and determined Olsen broke no laws.

Dave Olsen is a gentle giant in the mold of Hoss Cartwright. He is so easy-going and has such a positive, optimistic outlook on life that his nickname in Senator Herb Kohl's first campaign was "Darkside." It was the epitome of irony. He still hasn't shaken the name.

Olsen is not a guy to go looking for trouble. But he's not someone to back away from it, either.

His opponent, it appears, will be Chris Havill, whose family owns an automobile dealership and probably wouldn't mind the increased traffic Wal-Mart would bring past his lot. One thing is certain: Havill will not outwork Olsen. It is easy to foresee another Olsen weight loss coming as he knocks on every door in Jefferson -- probably more than once.

He's counting on the people of Jefferson to decide that there is nothing wrong or illegal, or against the community's best interests, in standing up for what you believe in. We'll find out when the votes are counted, with a late September or early October election likely.

In the meantime, if you'd like to help David take on Goliath, you could send a campaign contribution to Olsen for Alderman, 117 E. Dodge St., Jefferson WI 53549. Or if you want to volunteer to help in other ways -- phones, door-to-door, literature drops, whatever -- you can e-mail him at olsen@jefnet.com

Pro-Life Wisconsin sets new standards for extremism in attack on Marine's family

Sometimes, I admit, we get a little quick to label conservatives as extremists. It's an easy way to be dismissive. (Actually, I prefer the term wingnuts, like the conservatives like to call liberals moonbats, whatever they are.)

But Pro-Life Wisconsin has taken extremism to extremes, attacking the family and medical providers of a Marine who was seriously wounded in Iraq. When his doctors determined he would not recover, his family honored his wishes, outlined in a health-care power of attorney, and removed his feeding tube. Pro-Life Wisconsin complained to the news media, and issued a press release accusing Hospice Care of murder.

Susan Lampert-Smith says it better than I could in her Wisconsin State Journal column. The publicity-seeking pro-lifers have disgraced themselves.

Pro-Life Wisconsin bills itself as "Your 100% pro-life voice."

That means, for example, opposing abortion in every case, period. No exceptions, even for rape, incest or to save a woman's life. A teenage girl, raped by a relative, whose life is endangered by the pregnancy, would be forced to give birth, and perhaps die, if Pro-Life Wisconsin were writing the laws. Fortunately they're not -- yet. But they have growing influence in the Wisconsin legislature.

They represent hard-line, doctrinaire extremism at its worst.

UPDATE: Pro-Life Wisconsin has backed down from its charge that HospiceCare was guilty of murder, but refuses to apologize. The Capital Times has the story.

Vigils Wednesday support Cindy Sheehan

Hundreds of vigils are being held across the country at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday in support of Cindy Sheehan, the Gold Star mother who lost a son in Iraq and who has been trying to get an audience with President Bush.

I was going to list some of the local vigils, but Eye on Wisconsin beat me to it, so rather than duplicate effort I'll just steer you there.

The site also has a report on an incident last night at Camp Casey, where a pickup truck driver destroyed most of the crosses in a memorial to U.S. war dead in Iraq. Disturbing.

Milwaukee challenges Madison in ranking of liberal-voting cities

It had to be a blow to Madison's self-esteem when it ranked only 34th in a recent list of the country's most liberal cities -- only six spots ahead of Milwaukee.

Madison's always considered itself, and been considered as, a bastion of liberalism, since the anti-war days of the 1960s and the election of Paul Soglin, the Red Mayor, in 1973.

But the survey by the Berkeley-based (suspicious already?) group that did the study only considered voting, not attitude or political correctness -- and only for one election at that. It looked at cities with a population of 100,000 or more.

On the basis of presidential votes in 2004, Detroit tops the list. Liberal candidates took 93.96% of the vote in Detroit while conservative candidates held onto a mere 6.04% of the vote. Other cities with over 90% liberal votes include: Gary, Ind.; Berkeley, Cal.; the District of Columbia and Oakland, Cal. . The other top liberal cities in the top twenty-five range from 78% to 90% votes for liberal candidates.

And Madison? Number 34, with 74.92% of the vote going to liberals.

Milwaukee isn't far behind, at Number 40, with a 72.41% liberal vote.

The Midwest is actually the second most liberal area in the country, the survey says, with Detroit and Gary 1-2 and the top 25 also including Flint, Mich. (10), Cleveland (11), Chicago (17), St. Louis (20) and Minneapolis (23).

On the conservative side, Provo, Utah, home of Brigham Young University, is #1 with an 86% conservative vote, followed by Lubbock and Abilene, Tex. at 2-3. Four of the top 25 are in Texas and seven are in California.

Want more? See the whole report here.

Tom Reynolds' latest brainstorm

Sometimes you wonder whether it is worth even commenting on something this loony. But you do it to expose the lunacy and the lunatic, I guess. Remember when Republicans were conservatives who believed in the constitution, three branches of government, and checks and balances?

When do you think we should have the referendum on each of the 139 budget vetoes?

Without further comment, this from the Capital Times:

Lawmaker: Let voters override vetoes
By David Callender

A state lawmaker is proposing a constitutional amendment that would give voters the power to override the governor's veto.

Sen. Tom Reynolds, R-West Allis, said Friday he will introduce a measure that would allow voters another chance to directly enact legislation that has been vetoed by the governor.

Reynolds said the proposal is in response to Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle's veto of several Republican-backed bills,including Friday's veto of a bill to require voters to provide photo IDs before they can cast ballots.

"This constitutional amendment gives the people of Wisconsin a direct say in whether a bill becomes law rather than allowing the governor to obstruct important legislation," Reynolds said in a statement.

The amendment would give the Legislature the authority to put a vetoed bill up for a statewide vote to override the governor's veto. The proposed amendment would have to be passed by the Legislature in two successive years before it would go to voters for approval. As a result, the earliest such a measure could take effect would be in 2007.

'Dennis York' pulls the plug

Conservative blogger Dennis York says he is hanging up his keyboard, having gotten much more attention and notoriety than he ever expected.

If I contributed to that decision, I regret it. I thought Dennis, whoever he is, brought a rational, insightful conservative voice to the debate in Wisconsin. I was one of the first to start linking to him and encourage others to read him, even though we rarely, if ever, agreed on anything.

I revealed last Wednesday that Dennis is not really Dennis, but someone using a pseudonym to cloak his identity. I hadn't realized that until recently.

I speculated about how liberating it would be if I could write without readers knowing all of the heavy Democratic baggage I carry.

But I had no problem with the Yorkster's anonymity, and ended by encouraging him to keep writing.

I'm sorry to see him go. I hope he reconsiders.

Walker keeps whining, but he broughtElections Board problems on himself

Stop me if you've heard this before. No, don't stop me. I think I need to say it again. One of my teacher friends likes to say that "repetition is the mother of learning."

Scott Walker and his loyalists should stop whining about the $5,000 fine levied against him by the State Elections Board for failing to have a disclaimer saying that his campaign paid for 40,000 telephone calls to voters, urging support for his county budget.

There wasn't any partisan conspiracy going on. Walker was his own worst enemy. By playing fast and loose with he facts, and disrespecting the board, he brought the tough penalty on himself.

Walker defenders say the board made an example of him, that it hasn't imposed that kind of penalty -- or any penalty at all -- in most cases where the legal violation was failing to put a disclaimer on something.

If Walker had acted the way most candidates do when a complaint is filed with the board, he probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist, too.

Instead, he falsely claimed the issue had already been resolved by the County Election Commission. The board, predictability, found out that wasn't true.

He claimed the disclaimer was left off by the vendor, accidentally, and that the problem was corrected when his campaign learned about it. But his campaign offered no evidence to back up the claim that it asked for a disclaimer, and the vendors didn't back that up either.

When a complaint was filed, Walker asked for two extensions on his reply and then still missed the deadline and filed incomplete responses.

Finally, Walker dissed the board by not coming to the meeting himself and sending someone -- John Hiller, his treasurer -- who had nothing to do with placing the calls and couldn't really offer any useful information.

The one mitigating factor in Walker's behalf, for which I will give him credit, is that his campaign notified the Elections Board itself after the violation occurred. But that was simply a letter covering Walker's rear end, and offered no specifics about how the violation happened, when and how it was fixed, and how many calls went out without the disclaimer.

Hiller was the guy who got one of the calls, realized it should have a disclaimer, and called Jim Villas, then a Walker campaign consultant, now his chief of staff. That was Hiller's only role, so he wasn't a very helpful witness at the hearing.

The vendor who made the calls offered no explanation except that it made calls for two days, the first day without a disclaimer and the second with one on the message.

George Dunst, the Elections Board attorney, investigated the case and wrote a memo to the board before the meeting, basically saying in lawyerese that Walker's response did not ring true. I wrote a post about in before the meeting, saying that Dunst clearly didn't believe Walker.

It still might have gone OK for Walker if he -- or someone responsible for the violation -- had showed up, taken responsibility, explained how it happened, and promised to take steps to make sure there was no repeat. Instead, Walker ducked it and sent Hiller, whose lack of information simply irritated board members.

The law says any communication paid for by a campaign committee must clearly disclose who paid for it. The penalty is up to $500 for each occurrence. In Walker's case, no one knows how many calls went out in violation of the law. A $5,000 fine gives him the benefit of the doubt.

The vote to impose the fine was 5-3, and Walker -- along with sycophants like Charlie Sykes, Mark Belling and Jessica McBride -- have screamed that this is partisan politics at work.

It is true that four members of the board appointed by Democrats voted for the fine. Two Republicans and a Libertarian-named member voted no. And John Gard's representative stayed away.

The fifth "Jim Doyle hack"

The fifth "yes" vote -- the deciding vote that prevented a 4-4 tie -- came from the non-partisan member appointed by Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

I had to look him up to find out his name is David Anstaett. If he is a Democrat, there is no evidence that I can find. He is a lawyer at Heller Ehrman in Madison, and has a litigation practice. Before joining the firm in 2004, Anstaett was a fellow at the German Justice Department and Parliament, focusing on European Union law and German election law. He also served as a judicial clerk for Federal District Judge Barbara Crabb in 2001-2003.

His law firm bio says that "prior to his legal career, Mr. Anstaett worked as a lobbyist for a public interest organization in Washington, D.C., focusing on campaign finance reform legislation." (Turns out it was the non-partisan League of Women Voters.)

He has, it is true, written two articles for Ed Garvey's "Fighting Bob" website -- both about campaign finance reform and the McCain-Feingold bill. (By the time Sykes gets through with his Six Degrees of Separation Campaign (like he did on Cindy Sheehan), Anstaett will probably have Communist connections. Being appointed by Shirley Abrahamson might be enough.

Using the usual data bases, I have found no evidence he has ever made a contribution to a Wisconsin or federal candidate in either party.

This is one of the people Scott Walker calls "Jim Doyle's hacks on this Elections Board."

If Walker thinks the Chief Justice appointed a "Doyle hack" to the board, he should tell her so and ask her to appoint someone else.

Otherwise, he and his chorus of admirers should take up a collection, shut up, and pay the fine. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind if this story continued to have legs, and Walker certainly is helping that along with his "Boo-hoo, poor me" complaints.

Free piece of advice to the Walker crowd: Next time, take responsibility and tell the truth. Things usually go a lot better when you do.

"All Roads Lead to Rove" Vanity Fair blames the media

Editor and Publisher reports:

'Vanity Fair' Rips Media 'Conspiracy' in Covering Up Role in Plame Scandal

In an article in the September issue of Vanity Fair (not yet online), Michael Wolff, in probing the Plame/CIA leak scandal, rips those in the news media -- principally Time magazine and The New York Times -- who knew that Karl Rove was one of the leakers but refused to expose what would have been “one of the biggest stories of the Bush years.”

Not only that, “they helped cover it up.” You might say, he adds, they “became part of a conspiracy.” If they had burned this unworthy source and exposed his “crime,” he adds, it would have been “of such consequences that it might, reasonably, have presaged the defeat of the president, might have even -- to be slightly melodramatic -- altered the course of the war in Iraq.”

In doing so they showed they owed their greatest allegiance to the source, not their readers. And their source was no Deep Throat, not someone with dirt on the government -- the source “was the government.” So in the end, he concludes, “the greatest news organizations in the land had a story about a potential crime that reached as close as you can get to the president himself and they punted, they swallowed it, they self-dealt.”

And why did they do it? Well, “a source is a source who, unrevealed, will continue to be a source.”Even after the news first emerged last month that Rove had leaked to Cooper, the media still waited days to even ask the White House press secretary about it. It was a story, "in full view, the media just ignored." The title of the Wolff article is "All Roads Lead to Rove."

Quote, unquote

"... (W)hether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president, that's part of the job. And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But, I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."

-- President Bush on Cindy Sheehan, before taking a bike ride at his ranch.

Source: Birmingham News via TalkLeft.

Washington Post joinsvast right-wing conspiracy

The Washington Post -- a prime target, along with the New York Times, for wingnuts hawking their liberal media conspiracy theories, is catching some flak now for co-sponsoring a "Support the Troops" event on Sept. 11 that is beginning to look more like a pro-war rally.

Editor and Publisher reports that the rally will feature country musician Clint Black, whose song, "Iraq and I Roll," begins:

NOW YOU CAN COME ALONG
OR YOU CAN STAY BEHIND
OR YOU CAN GET OUT OF THE WAY
BUT OUR TROOPS TAKE OUT THE GARBAGE
FOR THE GOOD OLD U.S.A.

YOU CAN WAVE YOUR SIGNS IN PROTEST
AGAINST AMERICA TAKING STANDS
THE STANDS AMERICA'S TAKEN
ARE THE REASON THAT YOU CAN

The E&P story.

Progressive on savaging Cindy Sheehan; cites NY Sun as source for Sykes smear

Matt Rothschild, editor of The Progressive, writes on "The Savaging of Cindy Sheehan," and identifies the source Charlie Sykes apparently used to try to link the grieving mother to the Communist Party, as reported here on Friday. (My apologies to National Review online for linking them to the smear. The New York Sun gets the honors -- or dishonors, in this case.)

Rothschild:

The shameless savaging of Cindy Sheehan continues.

Bill O’Reilly says she’s a tool of “far left elements.”

The New York Sun echoes the charge, evidently reading the same rightwing talking points.

In an editorial on August 11, it says Sheehan “has put herself in league with some extreme groups and individuals.”

This is old-style McCarthyism, straight on down to the red-baiting.

The editorial quotes Sheehan about some of the groups she’s involved with, including Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, and Military Families Speak Out.

It then notes that these groups are on the steering committee of United for Peace and Justice, along with the Communist Party USA. (A person representing that party is one of the forty-one members who was voted onto the steering committee.)

This classic guilt-by-association trope just shows the reflexive response of the right: When your critic has credibility, and you can’t find anything else on her, destroy her with the old standby: You’re a communist dupe!

The Sun also points out that Sheehan is working with the Crawford Peace House, and it says that group’s website “includes a photo depicting the entire state of Israel as Palestine.” Actually, it depicts a protester holding a sign showing four maps of what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories, noting how Palestinians have been allowed less and less land over the past 60 years.

“Nobody is anti-Israel here,” says John Wolf, one of the founders of the Crawford Peace House. “We’re just asking for peace with justice and respect for international law.”

But for the New York Sun, the Crawford Peace House’s view of the Israel-Palestine conflict is convenient enough to tar Cindy Sheehan with.

Rightwing talk show host Phil Hendrie goes even lower, writing an article amazingly entitled “Anti-War Mom: Another Ignorant Cow,” Hendrie called Sheehan a “self-righteous ignoramus,” and then went into full mockery mode: “A mother grieving her loss. The inhumanity of war. Oh, the wickedness of it all.”

I’ve seen callousness before, but this piece may top them all. And catch Hendrie’s defense of the Iraq War: “This war was unavoidable, brought on by an historic clash of culture and ideal, powered by the American people themselves, rising to meet the future, pissing off the rag heads.” Rag heads?

By the way, Hendrie’s screed was posted on the website, freerepublic.com, which calls itself “the premier online gathering place for independent, grassroots conservatism on the web.”

Sheehan responds to her critics: “Nothing you can say can hurt me or make me stop what we are doing. We are working for peace with justice. We are using peaceful means and the truth to do it.”

-- Cartoon by Tony Auth, Philadelphia Inquirer.

The old double standard at work

The other day, when Republicans were hoping they could exploit bad feelings between two Dems -- Gov. Jim Doyle and Atty. Gen. Peg Lautenschlager -- WTMJ radio talker Charlie Sykes was outraged -- outraged! -- that Doyle said Lautenschlager's opinion wouldn't really affect his vetoes.

Sykes wrote:

ARROGANCE

Jim Doyle yesterday gave us a glimpse at what may turn out to be his fatal weakness: his arrogance and his contempt for the law.

Maple Bluff - Gov. Jim Doyle said Friday that Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager's review of his controversial state budget vetoes will not influence his fight with Republican legislators, who argue that his changes exceeded his authority.

"It isn't going to have an effect - the vetoes are there, the vetoes are in place," Doyle said....

"It isn't like she can undo a veto," Doyle added.

In other words: I don't care what she she says because it doesn't matter what the law actually is and she can't stop me. Whatever the constitution says, nobody can stop me.

This from a guy who used to be Attorney General himself. Unfortunately, this is the same attitude he had toward the Supreme Court decisions on his illegal gaming compacts -- he simply ignored them. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but his arrogance could come back to bite him in the butt.

Friday, Lautenschlager disappointed the Republicans by saying she believes Doyle's vetoes were constitutional and would be upheld in court.

How did the Republicans react? The AP reports:

[State Sen. Alan] Lasee and fellow GOP leaders said Friday they would ignore Lautenschlager's opinion as they decided whether to go to court and pledged to move forward with plans to pass a constitutional amendment that would rein in his veto authority.

In other words: The Repubs don't care what the law is, nobody can stop them if they want to go to court. They don't care what the constitution or the AG say.

And Sykes? Not a peep so far. Want to bet that when he does pipe up it will be to criticize Lautenschlager, not Lasee?

GOP praise of Ryan puts Green on the spot

Once again, Rep. Paul Ryan gets deserved praise for his willingness to stand up and be counted on Social Security, this time in a Republican Party release.

Which again raises the question: Where is Mark Green, and why is he hiding from the voters on this issue? (Earlier post, "A Tale of Two Congressmen.")

The Democratic Party has a little fun at Green's expense almost every weekend, sending out his campaign schedule to the media as a news advisory, with a headline like:

Congressman Green to Reveal Whether He Still
Supports Risky Plans to Privatize Social Security

followed by details of where and when he will be available to discuss the issue. I don't know if the media ever bite, but it's got to be an irritant to the Greenman.

Can we keep you safe for a million years?No problem, EPA says; we've got it covered

Photograph by Peter Essick, National Geographic
Each of these steel cylinders at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky holds 14 tons of depleted uranium left over from an enrichment process that changes ore to fuel for reactors.


Great news! The federal government has announced a radiation standard to protect Nevadans from nuclear waste for the next million years.

"The U.S. government has no plan for getting out of Iraq, balancing the budget, or repairing a hemorrhaging health-care system, but nuclear waste? It's got that covered for the next million years," the environmental newsletter Grist says. "Yes, responding to a 2004 federal court ruling that the previous standard of 10 millennia was insufficient, the EPA has revised its plan for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste dump in Nevada to account for earthquakes, climate change, and other potential upsets for an additional 990,000 years."

There's a need to keep nuclear waste out of the environment for a million years because some of its components remain deadly that long. After 250,000 years, a piece of plutonium the size of a grain of pollen could still give you cancer.

People in Nevada are understandably a bit skeptical about whether the government can protect them for 10,000 years, let alone a million. (Some perspective: Ten thousand years ago, Wisconsin was covered by glaciers.)

Some of the reaction:

"In short they've decided to kill a few people," said Joe Egan, an attorney who represented Nevada in the court fight over the project. "This is an obvious effort to give the project a pass" after the 10,000-year period.

Nevada Sen. John Ensign, a Republican, said he was "appalled at the complete arrogance of the EPA in announcing these standards."

More reaction from the AP:

"This is junk science at its worst," said Gov. Kenny Guinn. "We were pessimistic about the outcome, given EPA's record of pushing the repository. But never in our wildest nightmares would we have anticipated such a ridiculous standard."

Guinn noted the proposed standard was "three-and-a-half times more lenient" than the nuclear industry had recommended in its formal report to the EPA. "I can't imagine how they could have done anything to make themselves more vulnerable in the court of law as well as the court of science," Guinn said.

"What the agency released today is nothing more than voodoo science and arbitrary numbers," said U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. "At the time when the public faces the highest risk of radiation exposure, EPA proposes easing the overall public health standard, including throwing out the groundwater standard."

Reid, the Senate minority leader, accused the EPA of "trying to silence voices of opposition" by limiting a comment period to 60 days. "This is the latest attempt by the Bush Administration to ignore sound science and disregard the health and safety of Nevadans."

Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval vowed the state's battle against the project will continue in court. "If this bogus new standard, or anything close to it, ends up being adopted by EPA, Nevada will sue them again," Sandoval said. "It's an obscenely lax and dangerous new standard. They just threw up their arms and gave the project a pass."

"I guess Nevadans are expendable," said Bob Loux, director of Nevada's Nuclear Projects Office and Gov. Kenny Guinn's chief anti-dump spokesman. Loux called the standard "100 times more lenient than for people living next to the 103 (commercial nuclear) reactors around the country, and three and a half times more lenient than even the nuclear power industry was asking for."

"This is obviously another example of the Bush administration trying to ram through another environmental policy that threatens the health and safety of not only everyone in Nevada but everyone in the United States," said Sierra Club of Nevada spokeswoman Tara Smith. "If this standard is OK for Nevada, then pretty soon it's going to be OK anywhere they want to store nuclear waste temporarily or permanently."

"The standard released by the EPA today is arbitrary and grossly misguided," said Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. "EPA has an obligation to protect public safety today, tomorrow, and in a million years." Gibbons said the EPA had no scientific evidence that increasing its radiation standard from 15 millirem to 350 millirem after 10,000 years was "warranted or safe. The EPA should not speculate that a standard which is not deemed safe today could miraculously become a safe standard in the future," he said. "Public health and safety standards should not be based on speculation and supposition."

"This proposal is but the latest in a long line of attempts by the Bush administration to jump-start stalled efforts to bury the nation's nuclear waste in Nevada," Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in a statement. "The EPA can propose any number it wants, but the real trick will be proving this new standard can be met, and it remains to be proven that can be done."

"The EPA's so-called 'health standard' projections for determining what is a safe level of radiation exposure for Nevadans are irrational and misguided," said Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev. "Where's the proof that an additional 350 millirem per year of radiation won't have a negative impact on a human being?" Porter said the only way to protect the health and safety of Nevadans was "to make sure Yucca Mountain never becomes a repository for the nation's nuclear waste."

"I am appalled at the complete arrogance of the EPA in announcing these standards," said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. He called the standard "a blatant disregard for science, the law and the health of Nevadans. We've been down this road before," Ensign said. "The federal appeals court already determined that the 10,000-year standard violated the law. This new standard is no better, and the EPA has provided no scientific basis for the 350 millirem figure."

Quote, unquote

"I grieve for every death," Bush said. "It breaks my heart to think about a family weeping over the loss of a loved one. I understand the anguish that some feel about the death that takes place." (Emphasis mine.)

-- President George W. Bush, Crawford, Texas, commenting on Cindy Sheehan's vigil.

The sliming of Cindy Sheehan;Sykes suggests Communist ties

Unhappily, but predictably, the sliming of Cindy Sheehan, the distraught Gold Star mother, has begun.

It is coordinated and orchestrated, as are most right-wing attacks on people they want to silence, whether it is Joe Wilson about WMDs or Cindy Sheehan about the tragic toll in Iraq.

Our own Charlie Sykes spent some time on the subject on his WTMJ talk show Friday. Sykes was clever enough not to attack the mother, but did plant some doubt as to her stability, suggested the Democrats have taken over her media campaign, and warned the left that she might not be the one they want to rally around, as she has said some things that make her sound pretty far out there.

OK. But then, referencing (I think) the National Review online (or another source, but clearly using prepared material or talking points), Sykes gave a 2-minute lesson in red-baiting and McCarthyism. Starting with Cindy Sheehan, who has been sheltered by the Crawford Peace House, Sykes went on to link the Crawford peace group to other organizations and peace coalitions until he finally got to one that has a Communist Party representative on its board.

There's a line from the Army-McCarthy hearings that is so overused it borders on cliche. But I have to ask: Have you no sense of decency?

On the national scene:

"To what level will they sink?" this DailyKos entry asks about efforts to discredit, demean and dismiss Cindy Sheehan.

One conservative blog calls her a "left wing media whore in the form of a grieving mother."

Another conservative linked on this post discusses the difference between the conservative elite and the conservatives who actually live in Middle America. One comment from that post:

Something else about this story that infuriates me is the vision of feckless, smarmy smearsters and cowards hiding behind keyboards in cities like Washington and New York (and yes, Miami), punching out electronic missives in a pathetic and desperate attempt to impugn the integrity of a woman sitting in the dust and August heat of Texas---a woman who, along with her dead son, embodies everything that's right about this country.

VIDEO. Gold Star Mothers for Peace has produced a TV commercial, airing on Crawford cable, with Cindy Sheehan speaking directly to the camera. Watch it here.

Walker to Finley -- I've got your back;Well, I've got it up to a point . . .

Scott Walker's a great friend, but you might not want to be a a lifeboat with him if there's only one life jacket.

When Dan Finley, a fellow county exec from Waukesha County, was named to head the Milwaukee Public Museum, Walker was delighted, the Journal Sentinel reported.

Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker praised the choice of Finley, a fellow Republican with whom he has worked on several issues. Walker said he was given a heads-up by Schlifske that Finley was in the running, but had no role in the selection.
Finley said he had not consulted Walker on the move.

"It seems like an excellent choice," Walker said. "They need someone to get the finances and the fund raising under control."

For about 48 hours, there was a Finley lovefest. An inspired choice, the JS said. Public officials and community leaders praised the choice.

Then Finley suggested exploring a regional cultural district, which drew heavy flak from neighboring counties and people who were suspicious it would be a new taxing body. Walker? "Out of town and unavailable for comment" as the criticism of Finley's idea mounted.

Now questions are being raised about Finley's $185,000 salary, double what he makes as county exec -- whether that's appropriate for someone with no museum-related experience, especially at a time when the museum is struggling to stay afloat financially, and there have been staff and program cuts.

Finley's good friend Walker, finger in the political wind, didn't say Finley's salary was too high -- but suggested he give part of it back, suggesting $10,000 or $20,000 as the appropriate sum.

Walker said that a voluntary salary cut would give Finley the "moral authority" to order other spending cuts. Walker compared it to his situation; Walker returns $60,000 of his annual salary to the county. (Although Walker's pension was still being calculated at his full salary of $132,000 until his opponent, David Riemer, blew the whistle during the 2004 county exec race.)

Finley starts his new job -- without a contract -- on Monday.

Walker's role in the museum mess

Walker, meanwhile, continues to talk and act as though he had nothing to do with the museum mess, pointing fingers at the museum board and staff. The county, although contributing financially to the museum, was not involved in operational decisions, he says. It has gotten more involved now since floating a loan to bail out the museum.

But if the problem resulted from the board not being accountable and running amok, then Walker must take responsibility for allowing that to happen, in the heady days after he won the county exec's office in a 2002 recall. A Journal Sentinel story written June 25 explained:

As the museum's ambition waxed, county oversight waned. In August 2001, then-County Executive F. Thomas Ament and the County Board agreed to end the regular audits that had tracked museum operations since the partnership began. And during the power vacuum after the pension scandal that drove Ament from office in 2002, the museum pushed a major governance change through the County Board.

When the deal for the county spinoff of management was originally struck, all 27 museum board members were nominated by the county executive and needed County Board confirmation. The museum provided names for 12 of the appointments, giving it limited say. Ament had resisted altering that balance of power.

But when he was forced out in early 2002, the museum pounced, getting the County Board and newly elected County Executive Scott Walker to agree to a major change. Under the new deal, the museum board got to seat 18 members with no county review, with the rest being named by the county executive and County Board chairman.

The change gave the museum more say over its own fate,but diminished public oversight. Around the same time, the museum's dreams were expanding quicker than its purse.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Waukesha water issue spotlighted

Waukesha's water woes make the New York Times today:

WAUKESHA, Wis. - Time was when Waukesha's mineral-rich water was coveted by Milwaukeeans and Chicagoans, who scorned the Lake Michigan water lapping at their shores. In 1892, one speculator even tried to pipe the city's water to Chicago for the coming World's Columbia Exposition, until aroused Waukeshans trained pistols, pitchforks and fire hoses on the pipe layers, who retreated.

What a difference a century makes. Waukesha has sucked so much water from its deep aquifer that it is now looking to the vast blue expanse of Lake Michigan, just as Chicagoans once eyed its water.

But the authorities who control some of the largest bodies of fresh water in the world are not sure that any of it should go to communities like Waukesha, which is 15 miles from the lake's shore but outside of its watershed.

The full story.

Bucher pledges crackdown on voter fraud, "real and imagined'

How tough is Paul Bucher on voter fraud?

The Waukesha DA, and presumed frontrunner for the Republican nomination for state attorney general, has set the bar very high.

He won't stand for voter fraud -- real or imagined.

I am not making this up. Here's Bucher in an interview, posted on his own campaign website:

"Election fraud, real and imagined, needs to be dealt with swiftly and aggressively. No more talk. We need action on that front and we need it now! All these areas I have worked in and am familiar with. I am a problem solver, not a person who creates problems."

He's perfect for the job -- he not only wants to crack down on real and imagined fraud, buthe has experience with imagined fraud, too. "All those areas I have worked in and am familiar with."

Lord knows, there is barely enough real voter fraud around to keep a prosecutor busy. Roughly 3 million people voted in the presidential election in Wisconsin in 2004, and the cases of proven -- not imagined -- voter fraud are barely in double digits.

But if we're going to go after imagined voter fraud, there is no end in sight. Rick Graber over at the state Republican Party can probably find enough imagined fraud to keep the whole Dept. of Justice busy full-time.

Just this week Graber presented evidence -- well, actually there was no evidence presented, -- of some more possible fraud. As many as nine people may have voted in two states -- or maybe not. We don't know whether it's real or imagined -- but it makes no difference to Bucher. He will deal with it "swiftly and aggressively" regardless those fine distinctions.

Maybe Bucher needs some voter fraud bumper stickers:

"This is no time to be picky." "Fraud is fraud, even when it isn't." "Imaginary fraud today could be real fraud tomorrow." "Stop me before I vote again," or maybe just "Stop me before I vote," which would be more to the point.

When Bucher hears about voter fraud, real or imagined, it makes him wilder than Mark Chmura in a hot tub after the prom.

Thinking of breaking the law? With Bucher on the job, don't even imagine it.

Source: The Inside Scoop: An Inside Look at National, State and Local Politics. 3/20/05, Vol. 1 #16; Interview by Rick Sense.

Quote, unquote

"I asked [Supreme Court nominee John Roberts] whether it was constitutional for Congress to intervene in an end-of-life case with a specific remedy. His answer was:

'I am concerned with judicial independence. Congress can prescribe standards, but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds.' '

-- Sen. Ron Wyden, in the NY Times.

Reality check on legal challenge to vetoes

Before anyone gets too excited that some legal challenge will overturn Gov. Jim Doyle's vetoes, consider this observation from Matt Pommer, "dean" of the State Capitol press corps, in a column in the Daily Reporter:

Republican leaders hinted they would challenge Doyle's vetoes with a court suit. With less than five weeks before the start of school, Senate Majority Leader Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, suggested school districts think about not spending the additional money. A court may force them to repay the money, he hinted darkly.

It's unlikely that the state Supreme Court --- which would decide such a legal challenge --- would take less than eight months to render a decision. It's also unlikely that an elected state Supreme Court would order school districts to return the money to the state.

If beer kegs are registered, only registers will have beer kegs

This is a new one for me, but I like it.

La Crosse's Alcohol Oversight Committee has suggested that the city register beer kegs sold by retailers and to prohibit bartenders from drinking on duty, the LaCrosse Tribune reports.

"The prohibition on bartenders drinking is likely to be unpopular with members of the Tavern League.," the paper says. "But there is no reason why the keg registration law should not be passed at once."

What's it all about? LaCrosse is a college town where far too many students have ended up drunk at the bottom of the Mississippi in recent years, not to mention in jail, traffic accidents, and other mayhem. The drinking age is 21, but that has never stopped students from finding someone old enough to buy a keg for a party.

The idea is to number every beer keg and keep a record of who buys them. If a keg turns up at an under-age party busted by the cops, the purchaser would be in deep doo-doo.

"It's a no-brainer.," the Tribune says. I can hear the howls all the way to Milwaukee, but I think they're right. No one thing will stop the underage drinking, but this could put a dent in it.

Finally, from the editorial again: "As for the bartenders, the goal is to prevent people who are drunk from serving drunks."

Pretty radical stuff, huh? Here's the full editorial.

No case for photo ID: JS editorial

My favorite Milwaukee daily newspaper, the Journal Sentinel, in a Friday editorial:

If it turns out that at least nine people voting in Milwaukee last November illegally cast ballots in other cities, the offenders should be prosecuted.

But, pending a complete investigation of each and every allegation and a conclusion that this did in fact happen, these still do not make a case that Gov. Jim Doyle should sign legislation requiring photo ID for voting in Wisconsin.

And even if every case is verified - and is not a matter of simple inaccuracy in record-keeping at the polls - we remain unconvinced that the alleged cure of a photo ID isn't worse than the disease, fraud.

Read it all here.

Quote, unquote

"I think it is actually outright illegal, if not unconstitutional ... he's giving that authority to a non-elected bureaucrat, the secretary of Administration. I think it is outright illegal, it is a horrible precedent." -- Scott Walker, in an interview with Charlie Sykes, on Gov. Jim Doyle's vetoes.

At least Walker isn't running for attorney general, which might require him to cite a statute.

-- Cartoon by Jeff Danziger, LA Times Syndicate. (Click on cartoon to enlarge)

Onward, Christian voters

Falwell Dumps 'Vote Christian in 2008' Pitch

Jerry Falwell said he meant no harm when he told his supporters earlier this year to "Vote Christian in 2008."

Anti-Defamation League Director Abraham H. Foxman this week denounced the appeal of the evangelical leader, which had appeared in a Falwell fundraising pitch, calling it "divisive." "Appeals to voters should not be on the basis of religion, nor should a candidate's religious beliefs be a litmus test for public office," he said.

Falwell told the Lynchburg News & Advance that the appeal had been misunderstood but that he has abandoned it nevertheless. "What I was saying was for conservative Christian voters to vote their values, which are pro-life and pro-family," Falwell said. "I had no intention of being anti-Jewish at all." -- The Washington Post.

No comment yet from Texas gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman.

A tale of two Congressmen

This is one time that Brian Christianson, my conservative counterpart on WisOpinion, and I are on the same wave length. Christianson, on his Free Will blog, salutes Rep. Paul Ryan for having the courage to stand up and face the voters on an issue even at some political risk.

Ryan, who's been outspoken on the Social Security issue and has authored a bill to allow private accounts, debated someone who's well-versed on the issue -- and who strongly disagrees with him -- in Janesville this week.

A crowd reported at 600 people turned out to listen to Ryan and Dean Barker, co-director of a think tank and author of a book on Social Security. The turnout itself is amazing, but Ryan's willingness to participate, knowing that many in the audience disagreed with him, was refreshing.

Christianson writes:

Paul Ryan continues to demonstrate why voters in the First District respect him; Paul will not duck and hide in Washington.

Forget the Republican–Democrat label for a moment. Voters want politicians who act less like used car salesmen hustling a deal, and more like doctors offering a diagnosis; Give it to me straight, Doc, how much time do I have left?

It was very informative…this is what democracy is all about I definitely came away with a better understanding of the whole issue The ability to tell us what we don’t really want to hear is the signature of a politician who puts people ahead of Party; ho puts people ahead of career.

Personally, I hope Paul never runs for statewide office. He has more to offer than that. Paul has the integrity and intellectual honesty to change the U.S. House of Representatives and with it, to build a GOP Generation of future leaders.

Christianson doesn't make the obvious comparison with another Wisconsin Republican who's in Congress. I guess he just teed it up for me.

Mark Green, the man who would be governor, has spent the last six months trying to duck the Social Security issue. He brushes off questions, acts like he doesn't know anything about the issue, and has repeatedly refused to attend town meetings -- or even organize an event of his own -- to discuss and defend his stand on Social Security. Can you imagine Green debating in front of 600 people when he won't even answer a reporter's question on the issue?

Everything that Christianson says about Ryan reflects negatively on Green. If Ryan puts people ahead of career, Green puts career ahead of people. I don't believe you are required to sell your soul or compromise your principles to run for statewide office. But Mark Green certainly has.

Comment/no comment

You may notice the comments are back on, and that when you click on them, they now say, in great big type, "This blog does not allow anonymous comments."

It asks you to register with Blogger.com if you want to post comments here.

That is a very simple process. It will ask you to pick a screen name, password, and give a valid e-mail address. But it will not ask for a photo ID, and the e-mail address remains with Blogger. It will not be posted and I will not get it, either. Another benefit is that your Blogger registration is good on any other site hosted by Blogger, like Free Will, for example, which already required registration.

We're still exploring other alternatives to encourage civil discussion while respecting people's rights to privacy. In the meantime, we'd like to hear from you. We know you're out there. But, as they say in the movies, "It's quiet . . . . . TOO quiet."

---

We're really in the big time now. Advertising, too. Can product placement in my posts be far behind?

Yorkster defends life in the shadows

Yesterday I devoted entirely too much space, I'll admit, to the question: "Who is Dennis York and why is he saying those terrible things about me?"

Not really. But I did point out that conservative blogger Dennis York is not Dennis York, and tried to ruminate a little on the bigger question of anonymous blogging.

Anyway, I got my licks in. Today the Yorkster gets his rebuttal.

Now I can get back to my unhealthy obsession with F. Jim Sensenbrener.

Medicare? Medicaid? Whatever

Republican State Party Czar Rick Graber has a little trouble keeping some of those gummint programs straight. All he knows for sure is that he doesn't like most of 'em -- unless there is a chance to attack Gov. Jim Doyle.

Latest Graber ankle-biting was a GOP release titled, "Doyle's hypocrisy on Medicare."

Doyle, Graber correctly noted, criticized a plan to change Social Security because it would hurt Medicare funding. But Doyle' state budget shifted money from Medicare to schools, Graber said. Voila! Doyle's a hypocrite.

No one has ever accused me of being a policy wonk, but maybe I can help the Rs sort out these two Ms. (Really confusing; they start with the same syllable.)

Medicare is a health insurance program for people age 65 years and older and some disabled people under 65. Medicare is run by and funded by the federal government.

Medicaid is a federally-funded, state-run program that provides medical assistance for individuals and families with limited incomes and resources.

Here's what Doyle said about the Bush Social Security plan:

From education to prescription drugs to homeland security, the federal government isn't living up to its commitments to states. The President's plan would make matters even worse. Privatizing the system would cost about $5 trillion.

That's $5 trillion less to help states pay the increasing costs of Medicaid...

... and that's $5 trillion less to secure our harbors and ports ...

... that's $5 trillion less for special education -- where the federal government has been falling short for three decades...

Let me be clear -- we're not asking for handouts -- we're simply asking Washington to be a responsible partner for Wisconsin. Most of all, we're asking the federal government to keep its commitments to senior citizens -- protecting Social Security, making prescription drugs more affordable, and confronting the challenge of long-term care.

NRA to bring law and order to St. Louis;Green Bay not likely convention location

From our good buddies the Gun Guys:

The NRA has announced that their 2007 Convention will be hosted in a much more gun-friendly citizen than those miserable spoil-sports in Columbus: St. Louis!

[The NRA cancelled its Columbus convention plans because the city council passed an assault weapons ban.--Xoff.]

Obviously Missouri is one heck of a gun-friendly state, so I'm sure that the good citizens of St. Louis live a charmed life, free of the specter of violent crime...right? Shockingly enough, no!

St. Louis actually ranks as the 4th most dangerous city in America with a population of more than 75,000 people. And the stats aren't much better when it's compared to cities of comparable size. It's the 2nd most dangerous city in America in it's weight class. (Stats come from Morgan Quinto)

Clearly what this city needs in an influx of CCW permit-holding NRA members to go "Dirty Harry" on the mean streets of the city. We say it's about time!

---

No Fox Valley convention?

Meanwhile, it looks like a pretty safe bet that Green Bay and Appleton are off the list of possible NRA convention sites, too.

The police chiefs of those Fox Valley cities have spoken up against allowing people to carry concealed weapons in Wisconsin. State Sen. Dave Zien is working on the latest incarnation of his bill, due for introduction soon, the Green Bay Press Gazette reports.

Wisconsin law enforcement officials and organizations have been almost unanimous in their opposition to concealed carry in the past. They think that putting more guns on the street, in the grocery store, at the park, on the bus, at the zoo, etc etc etc will endanger their officers and the public.

“We are not anti-gun, anti-hunter or anti-NRA,” Green Bay Police Chief Craig Van Schyndle said at a press event held by Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort at the Brown County Courthouse in Green Bay. “This is an officer-safety issue and a community-safety issue. Green Bay, Appleton and Brown County are very safe communities, and concealed carry is a very dangerous proposition.”

Where would they get a crazy idea like that?

Tea and sympathy could go a long way

Maureen Dowd is back and in good form with a column on why W doesn't defuse the issue of the mother of an Iraq KIA camping outside his Crawford ranch. That's Cindy Sheehan above, in a photo by Jason Reed of Reuters, with Bill Mitchell, who also lost a son in Iraq.

Dowd writes:

It's amazing that the White House does not have the elementary shrewdness to have Mr. Bush simply walk down the driveway and hear the woman out, or invite her in for a cup of tea . . .

It's hard to think of another president who lived in such meta-insulation. His rigidly controlled environment allows no chance encounters with anyone who disagrees. He never has to defend himself to anyone, and that is cognitively injurious. He's a populist who never meets people - an ordinary guy who clears brush, and brush is the only thing he talks to. Mr. Bush hails Texas as a place where he can return to his roots. But is he mixing it up there with anyone besides Vulcans, Pioneers and Rangers?

FEEDBACK: A reader e-mails: It’s great that The Journal Sentinel chose to run Maureen’s on-the-money column this morning. Glad you repeated it on your blog as this was a great piece. There is only one problem. If you only read the Journal Sentinel you would not know who Cindy Sheehan is. The paper has not breathed a single word about this single person’s quest to ask Bush the questions the media doesn’t have to guts to ask.

Here's an excellent LA Times story on how Cindy Sheehan has raised the stakes.

Nine may have voted twice! -- Or not

"Nine may have voted in two cities" says the Journal Sentinel headline over a 37-inch story (I kid you not) on the latest claim by Wisconsin Republicans.

"Nine may not have voted in two cities," is another possible headline, of course. The Republican method of running voter lists against post office change of addresses doesn't really prove anything, they would admit. (One case of voter fraud is too many, of course, but it adds some perspective to note that 277,535 people voted in the city in that election, so nine is .003% of the total.)

They wouldn't make the names of the alleged perpetrators public, so there isn't really any way to check the claims, unless and until the U.S. attorney investigates and announces a finding.

The "news" conference reached the heights of absurdity when the GOP chose to hold it outside of a Milwaukee house that was somehow implicated in voter fraud, but wouldn't give the names of any residents or make any charges.

I think we should book that building and lock it up before it votes again.

I understand newspapers' space limitations, and when you only have 37 column inches you can't work every last detail in.

Here's one from the AP story on the same news conference that didn't make the JS. It's from State GOP Chair Rick Graber, who held the news conference, along with leggies who called again for the governor to sign a voter photo ID bill:

But Graber acknowledged that an ID requirement might not have prevented the double-voting.

"We've never said voter ID is a cure-all. It is a common sense first step," Graber said.

ABC backtracks on voter fraud item

We noted yesterday that ABC News' The Note had reported on the American Center for Voting Rights, a total Republican front group, as though it were a legitimate, independent operation. I also e-mailed ABC to point it out. I'm sure I was not the only one to complain.

Today, The Note recovers with this:

In this space yesterday we brought you an excerpt of a letter from RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman in (unsurprising) support of a recent report from the American Center for Voting Rights. A sentence placing ACVR in its proper partisan context was accidentally omitted from The Note. As many Note readers know, ACVR's leadership is largely dominated by Republican activists including Bush-Cheney 2004 general counsel Thor Hearne and former RNC spokesguy Jim Dyke.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean issued this statement in response to the ACVR report: "This shouldn't be a partisan issue, this is an American issue. . . I re-issue my call to Chairman Mehlman and the Republican Party to review our report and to work with us to reform the way elections are conducted, and to ensure that we restore Americans' confidence in our election system."

Just to recap: Both national party chairmen support a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to voter fraud or intimidation and/but this partisan back and forth doesn't seem to have moved the ball one iota down the field.

Ah, to be a baggage-free blogger;The Yorkster has figured out how

Let me apologize in advance if this is too inside baseball. My worst fear is that I become part of the blog world where bloggers spend all of their time writing to and about each other.

I'm still new at this blogging business, but I'm starting to think I might have gone about it all wrong.

I've done this in a very public way, putting myself out there on a wide range of topics (some would say whether I know anything about them or not.)

Everyone who reads this has a pretty good idea where I'm coming from. I've been doing Democratic campaigns in the state for 20 years. That's a lot of baggage. A quick Google will produce all sorts of information, which provides a background and sometimes a filter or prism through which some people view my comments.

That also allows critics to dismiss most anything I say by questioning my motives. I'm just a Doyle/liberal/Democratic/pinko/whatever flack, they say. And that relieves them of any obligation to deal with the substance.

But what if I could reinvent myself and start with a blank slate? Maybe write under a pen name. Chris Williams? Christine Williamson? Whatever.

That's the approach my blogging associate on the right, Dennis York, has taken.

I first encountered his blog awhile back when he had a piece on WisOpinion. I checked out the blog, found it interesting, insightful, and well-written, and began to link to entries there. He thanked me, via e-mail, for helping to expand his audience when he was just getting started.

I was naive enough to think that his name was Dennis York. Turns out it wasn't, that it is a nom de plume he uses online. His "complete profile" on his blog says he is a male from Madison. There is no way to know if that's even true. Maybe her name is Denise. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's telling the truth about his gender and location.

What an advantage to have no past, no baggage, no political connections that anyone knows about. That is freedom of speech in its purest form.

I stumbled onto the fact that Dennis is actually his Clark Kent identity when he named five "good" Democrats and asked me to come up with five Republicans I could stand to be in the same room with. I asked him in an e-mail for a little more information about himself. He replied:

I'd just prefer to let people keep playing the guessing game as far as who I am. I just started this blog to make a couple of my buddies who work in the Capitol laugh - they feed me the good stuff, and I write. It's kind of scary now - nobody was really ever supposed to actually read it, but it looks like they are.

OK, fair enough. I went ahead and did an item about the "best" Republicans, just to be a good sport, although I qualified it by saying I am not a Capitol dweller, live in Milwaukee, and am blissfully ignorant of the identify of many state leggies. I hope to keep it that way. I called York someone "who dwells in the shadows," but the light still had not come on that he was not really Dennis York.

When Wisconsin Public Radio called to ask if I would do a show with Dennis York to discuss and compare our respective lists (not debate), I said yes. I was curious to see what he would say -- which was no. He talks about it on his blog:

Followers of my blog know that, for obvious reasons, I couldn't possibly go on air - although it would be a blast. So I propose that anyone that wants to go on air as Dennis York, be my guest. We could even turn it into a little competition, to de-pants Xoff on air. Debate to your heart's content. I already told them I couldn't do it, so it may take a little backtracking.

I am almost serious.

So, have I helped to create a monster? He posts my photo, but won't tell us his identity. He invites me to name some decent Repubs, then critiques my choices. (I restrained myself from commenting on his five Dems, even when one was Julie Lassa!)

Does his Man in the Mask routine disqualify him from participating in this great debate in the blogosphere? Of course not. It simply means that you have to read his comments in a vacuum, without having any idea what his own motives or biases might be. There is simply no context.

Would you read him with a grain of salt if you knew he worked for John Gard, for example? Or if you knew he was a lobbyist for the Realtors? Or whatever? What are those "obvious reasons" he can't identify himself? Is he a Supreme Court justice? Covered by the federal Hatch Act? On Huber Law work release? Married to Julie Lassa?

One thing his anonymity does do is allow him to speak his mind about Republicans as well as Democrats without having to worry about fallout. That is the best argument for a secret identity. I would probably -- no, undoubtedly -- be a little more candid and tougher on some Dems if I had the luxury of being anonymous.

Maybe one of these days the real Dennis York will stand up. Until then, keep a sharp watch. If you uncover his identity, I'd be curious. I'd even offer a reward -- maybe $2. (I didn't say I was that curious. I'm just somewhat bemused by the whole concept.)

Keep on blogging, Dennis, whoever you are. As we used to say in the newspaper business, "I read all your stuff."

---

On the McBride matter:

The Yorkster wonders why I mention Jess/Jessie/Jessica McBride/Bucher so often. Simple explanation, the same one I offered when one of Scott Walker's people asked why I write about him so much: Easy target.

McBride burst onto the Wisconsin blogging scene in earnest recently and has gotten a fair amount of attention, and not just from me.

But she seems conflicted about what role she wants to play. She has three personas; no wonder she needs three names.

Sometimes she wants to be taken seriously as a political pundit, offering her advice to Walker, for example, about how to get his gubernatorial campaign back on track. I don't know that she's ever run a campaign, but it ain't brain surgery, so have at it, I say. Walker needs all the advice he can get, good and bad.

Then she'll turn around and act like a playground gossip, chanting "I know something you don't know and I'm not gonna tell you." Typical post: "There's some really big news going to break tomorrow, and I know all about it, and it's really exciting, and people will be really surprised, and I can't wait until people find out, but I just can't tell you."

And, finally, she's a media and writing critic. When someone who teaches college journalism and makes fun of reporters' writing on her blog writes something like,

There will be a surprise twist in the Waukesha County executive race on Monday morning. I know what it is, but I can't reveal it yet. All I will say is that I think it's a really good decision for all parties involved. But it will definitely surprise people, because it's unexpected.

I feel an obligation to point it out. (After I did, she edited it to get rid of "because it's unexpected.") She needs an editor, but I'm not volunteering.

Poll: Amercans feel more vulnerable

USA Today reports:

WASHINGTON — American attitudes toward the war in Iraq continue to sour in the wake of last week's surge in U.S. troop deaths, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows.

An unprecedented 57% majority say the war has made the USA more vulnerable to terrorism. A new low, 34%, say it has made the country safer. The question is critical because the Bush administration has long argued that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken to make the USA safer from terrorism.

Poll results.

No connection between problem, 'solution'

Quick: What will a photo ID to do prevent people from voting in two states?

Nothing, of course.

But that didn't stop Wisconsin Republicans from trying to make the connection. And the Journal Sentinel's Greg Borowski is good for a long story on anything that mentions "voter fraud," rehashing every allegation made in the last year.

Tuesday's story from JS online:

Republicans today sent a photo ID requirement to Gov. Jim Doyle for a third time, on the same day the state party sent evidence to investigators that at least nine people who voted in Milwaukee last November also cast ballots in other cities, including Chicago and Minneapolis.

At a Milwaukee news conference, party leaders - including the sponsors of the photo ID bill - said the findings of duplicate voters in Milwaukee and other cities adds a new urgency for reforms. They also called on investigators, who have already charged nine people with voter fraud, to review the matter.

"Quirky' veto power not unconstitutional

Stolen in its entirety from the Journal Sentinel's Capitol blog:

U.S. judges found gov's veto power 'quirky'

In the bitter "Did, too!"/"Did not!" fight between Republicans who run the Legislature and Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle over whether Doyle abused his veto power when he rewrote the GOP's state budget, it's time for a short history lesson.

In 1991, then-Republican Gov. Tommy G. Thompson's extensive vetoes of the state budget of Democrats, who then ran the Legislature, prompted two angry Democrats to sue Thompson in federal court. Those two, who are still in the Legislature, Sen. Fred Risser, of Madison, and Rep. Dave Travis, of Waunakee, sued to try and get federal judges to do what Wisconsin Supreme Court judges had refused to do for decades: clip the veto wings of Wisconsin governors, which scholars say is the broadest of all governors.

But, in a case that the U.S. Supreme Court turned its back on, the federal judges refused to get involved in what it called the ultimate state's rights issue. Basically, the federal judges told Tommy, Fred and Dave to not take up any more of their time.

According to a Legislative Reference Bureau history of the partial-veto authority of governors, here's what the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled:

"Wisconsin's partial veto provision as interpreted by the state's highest court is a rational measure for altering the balance of power between the branches (of state government).

"That it is unusual, even quirky, does not make it unconstitutional.

"It violates no federal constitutional provision because the federal Constitution does not fix the balance of power between branches of state government."

Translation: Wisconsin governors have enough veto power to make water run uphill. And, if lawmakers can't find the two-thirds majorities to override those vetoes, they are out of luck -- and have been since 1930, when governors got that partial-veto authority.

--By Steven Walters

Nuge is a no-go for gov

Ted Nugent (above, the one smiling) is not running for governor of Michigan, Political Wire reports. Presumably, the Nuge prefers to spend his time killing animals.

Phony "voter rights" group hooks ABC News

I was surprised to find this item today in The Note, a daily roundup prepared by the political unit of ABC News:

Later today, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman will respond to a report on voter fraud in the 2004 election from American Center for Voting Rights.

"I strongly support your proposal of a zero-tolerance policy toward election fraud and intimidation, and I would encourage Chairman Dean and the Democrat Party to do the same. The position of the Republican National Committee is simple: we will not tolerate fraud; we will not tolerate intimidation; we will not tolerate suppression. No employee, associate, or any person representing the Republican Party who engages in these kinds of acts will remain in that position. Republicans do not need to resort to fraud and intimidation to win, and no Republican who does deserves victory," writes Mehlman in his letter to the report's authors.

As reported here -- and many other places -- last week, the group is a Republican front organization, through and through. No Wisconsin media took the bait when the group issued a phony report last week. I'm surprised that ABC news has been hooked.

Here's the latest unmasking of the group, by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Worth a read.

Extra! Extra! Waukesha water statistics!

This mildly interesting story about water usage in Waukesha ran in Monday's Regional Journal Sentinel:

Water use in 10 major Waukesha County communities has grown only 4% since 1997 despite a 9% growth in population, leading water experts to challenge critics who argue that little is being done to preserve water resources.

In just one more example of how my news judgment has deteriorated over the years since I left the newspaper business. I would have put that story back in the Metro section.

It ran on the top of the front page, as the top story in the paper, with a big two-line headline:

Water use trailing
population growth

Do you think someone has an agenda -- like helping Waukesha siphon water out of Lake Michigan?

Meanwhile, on Tuesday's editorial page, there's a more rational approach. While hailing the report as good news, the editorial also says:

But it still doesn't mean that Waukesha should be able to pipe in Lake Michigan water without returning it to the lake. Waukesha has proposed such a diversion as a way of addressing the problems posed by decreasing water levels in the deep underground aquifers that the city relies on for its water supply. The Great Lakes are simply too vital a national and natural resource to risk damaging by allowing diversions that don't return water to the Great Lakes basin.

It's just the latest example of how agendas in the news and editorial departments sometimes clash. (I know, the news operation should not have an agenda, but I quit believing in the tooth fairy on my first newspaper job 40 years ago). Other examples are the sewage district, where the news room has been on an anti-MMSD crusade for several years, while the editorial page remains rational, and the voter ID/election "fraud" stories which sensationalize some relatively minor problems while the editorial page points out that voter IDs won't solve them.

If they ever all get on the same page, we could be in real trouble.

National Cell-a-Thon Day

Today is National "Cell-a-Thon" Day

The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR) has planned a coordinated effort today to show President Bush the amount of support for embryonic stem cell research, and for H.R. 810 in particular.

StemPAC and other advocacy organizations hope to flood the White House with phone calls on Tuesday, August 9 -- the fourth anniversary of President Bush's stem cell policy announcement.

H. R. 810, to allow federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, has passed the House and is awaiting action in the Senate, where Majority Leader Bill Frist has announced his support. Bush is threatening a veto if it passes.

STEMPAC's CALL TO ACTION:

Call President Bush (202-456-1414) and ask him to

"SIGN H.R. 810 INTO LAW WHEN THE BILL PASSES THE SENATE"

You can also leave a message on the White House comment and suggestion line at 202-456-1111.

Talking points:

1) Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to treat and better understand a host of diseases such as Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, autoimmune diseases, Alzheimer's, and ALS.

2) Polling data shows that embryonic stem cell research is supported by a majority of Americans. (Even a majority of Republicans).

3) More than 100 million Americans who suffer from chronic and debilitating diseases and their families want to see this legislation become law.

The StemPAC Team
StemPAC.com/

The organizers didn't say so, but this seems like a call to make on your cell phone. ( Sorry, no self-control. Could not resist.)

Rationale for gag order doesn't hold up

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke's gag order, forbidding anyone who works for him from talking about sheriff's department business or sharing any documents, is a blatant attempt to shut up his critics, who are legion in the department.

A Journal Sentinel editorial lets him make his arguments:

Clarke says his goal is not to impede information but to control the flow of confidential information that the sheriff says is being leaked. The sheriff says that because that information is often inaccurate and is being released prematurely and in a piecemeal manner, it's undermining the department's mission and causing needless confusion.

The sheriff says the so-called gag order, which directs departmental personnel to "keep official agency business confidential," is merely a continuation of an existing department policy, one that Clarke says goes back to 1984, if not earlier. What's more, the sheriff says most large law enforcement agencies have similar policies to prevent information from getting out prematurely that may interfere with investigations or other police business

Then it comes down, as you might expect, in favor of lifting the gag order, which, despite Clarke's explanation, was issued two days after his order putting Deputy Michael Schuh on a one-man central city patrol fell into the hands of the newspaper. That's "official agency business," but there is no reason in the world it should be confidential. Do you think Clarke planned to announce that assignment, which he has since tried to dress up as a policy initiative? Of course not. As we said here earlier, Clarke needs to recognize that he's operating in a democracy.

Credit where credit is due

Scott Walker complains in his recent newsletter that Gov. Jim Doyle is getting credit in TV commercials for ending state taxes on Social Security benefits. It's part of the budget bill Doyle signed.

Walker claims it's a Republican idea, and says that besides thanking the GOP legislators who put it into the budget bill, the WEAC-sponsored ads "should also be thanking Scott Walker. Back on April 14th Scott Walker proposed the exemption of Social Security from state taxation..."

Gee, way back in April. Walker's really a visionary, eh?

If we're going to go by date of authorship, State Sen Dave Hansen, a Green Bay Democrat, has a good claim. He introduced a bill on Jan. 7, 2004 to end the tax on Social Security. Trouble is, even though it had some GOP co-sponsors, the Republican majority in the Senate sent it off to a committee to die, and it never even got a public hearing.

Thanks, Sen. Hansen.

Easy to identify hypocrisy in voter ID law

Wisconsin is far from the only state where Republicans are trying to impose strict voter identification laws intended to give the GOP an electoral edge.

In Georgia, which has accepted 17 different kinds of ID, the push is on for a state-issued photo ID card.

This from Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

When Mamie Fields (left) voted last year, it was easy. She rode the elevator down to the lobby of Lakewood Christian Manor, a high-rise for the elderly. The voting booths were right there, so all she had to do was show her Social Security card and cast her ballot.

But Gov. Sonny Perdue and the GOP-dominated Legislature have gotten tough on people like Fields, who is 93, so she won't be able to get away with that again. Claiming they were on the lookout for fraudulent voters, GOP legislators pushed through a stringent voter ID law that would force Georgians to show a state-sponsored photo ID. But Mamie Fields doesn't have one. She hasn't driven in many years, she said.

She has been ailing lately — troubled with shingles — and she's not sure she'd be up to voting in next year's elections for congressional and state offices anyway. "I wish I could vote lots of times. I want to throw all those rascals in Washington out," she said, noting that she supports Democrats, and "I don't care who knows it."

Actually, Perdue and his Republican colleagues had probably guessed that already. If voters like Fields were reliable GOP voters, it's unlikely that a newly empowered Republican majority in the Legislature would have pushed through the controversial voter ID law, the most restrictive in the country. They are simply taking a page from the GOP handbook — throwing up barriers to intimidate or inconvenience voters who tend to vote for Democrats. Elderly voters and black voters are among the Democrats' most reliable constituencies.

Across the country, GOP strategists have used dirty tricks against Native Americans, blacks and Latinos, ranging from false reports of invalid registration to threatening legitimate voters with arrest. They've been doing it for years. In 1993, Republican operative Ed Rollins, who managed Christine Whitman's run for governor of New Jersey, made headlines when he attributed her success, in part, to his tactic of paying black preachers to keep their congregants away from the polls. Though he later retracted the claim, it had the unfortunate ring of truth.

Since then, the tactics have only become more open and more aggressive. In 2003, South Dakota's GOP-dominated state Legislature passed a law requiring photo IDs, and it kept many of that state's Native Americans, reliable Democratic voters, from the polls last year. Perhaps it's no coincidence, then, that Tom Daschle, who had been Senate minority leader, lost his race for re-election.

Of course, Perdue and GOP legislators swear nothing of the sort is going on. They insist — insist — that they are just trying to ferret out fraud. But their claims don't wear so much as a stitch of credibility. To start, the new law makes it easier to use absentee ballots; no longer do voters have to give a legitimate reason for filing by mail, as they did before. Nor is any sort of ID required to vote absentee.

But, as Secretary of State Cathy Cox points out, "In contrast to the lack of voter fraud relating to impersonating voters at the polls, the State Election Board has reviewed scores of cases of alleged voter fraud relating to the use of absentee ballots." (For Republicans, however, absentee ballots do have an advantage: They are filed more often by GOP voters.)

Furthermore, the Legislature passed its new law while doing precious little to fix the backlog for driver's licenses. The newly created Department of Driver Services, where voters will have to go for their new state-sponsored IDs, is still short-staffed. As it stands, only 56 motor vehicle safety licensing branches serve Georgia's 159 counties.

Angeline Harden, 56, (above, right) who also lives in Lakeview Christian Manor, will have to travel outside the city of Atlanta and endure an hours-long wait to renew her driver's license, which has expired.

While black legislators have labeled the voter ID bill a racist ploy, it will also ensnare some white voters, like Fields. But it will affect black voters like Harden disproportionately. Cox's office estimates that white Georgians are five times more likely to have a car or truck than black Georgians. According to Kilpatrick Stockton attorney Seth Cohen, about 4 percent of white adults in Georgia lack a driver's license, but more than four times as many black adults — about 18 percent — lack one.

Apparently, Perdue and his GOP colleagues have ruled out trying to appeal to black voters and win their support. Instead, they've decided to block them from the ballot box. That's un-American, and it ought to be stopped.

Tommy wears 'the mark of the beast'

I tried to warn Tommy Thompson six weeks ago, when he first said he was having a chip implanted under his skin (so it's easier for the Humane Society to identify him) that some people wouldn't be happy. Actually, he is doing it because VeriChip, one of several companies who think Tommy works for them full time, makes the chips.

First, a conservative/libertarian (i.e. wingnut) called the chip "an abomination."

Now, John Conner, author of something called "The Resistance Manifesto," says Christians across the country are going to boycott VeriChip because the implanted chips are "the mark of the beast."

Let's let Connor explain in his press release:

San Diego, CA – Christians across the country are calling for a boycott of the VeriChip implantable microchip, now becoming popular in the U.S., calling it “the mark of the Beast” as referred to in the Bible. The VeriChip is planned to rapidly replace credit and debit cards, as well as traditional forms of identification.

Could Revelation 13:16-18 have been any more specific? "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads, and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

Well, gee, I thought he was a fruitcake, but there it is, right in the Bible. I'm going to have to rethink this.

Clarke, ordained by God, wants deputies to just shut up and salute

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke is a slow learner.

Clarke, in all kinds of hot water for retaliating against a deputy who dared to criticize him, has a new idea:

Let's gag all of the deputies so they can't tell anyone what I'm doing to them. And if they break that rule, why, I'll just punish them.

The deputies, understandably, are less than thrilled with Clarke's latest attempt to impose a total dictatorship in his department. In fact, they have filed a legal action. Something about some First Amendment or something.

A recap is necessary:

One of Clarke's deputies, Bailiff Michael Schuh, criticized Clarke in an article in a union newsletter last month. Clarke, who thinks he is above criticism, retaliated by assigning Schuh to a one-man foot patrol, with no backup or squad car, in one of Milwaukee's most dangerous inner city neighborhoods.

That prompted a page one newspaper story and generated a week's worth of bad news for Clarke, who kept pouring gasoline on the fire. Even his best friends,the radio talkers, turned on him.

That first story quoted a July 25 memo to Schuh from Sheriff's Capt. Eileen T. Richards, outlining his new assignment. The story ran on July 26.

On July 28, Clarke issued his new gag order. If no one could share any documents or talk to the news media, he wouldn't have any problems, right?

Wrong.

Someone must be in trouble now, because the new order found its way to the newspaper, although it took a week. In all likelihood, the paper asked the union for a copy after the deputies union filed for a restraining order to block the policy.

The problem between the sheriff and his deputies is fundamental. David Clarke has forgotten that he was elected by the people of Milwaukee County to run a public agency, where information is accessible and he is accountable to the citizens.

He thinks he was anointed by God, was endowed with unlimited power, and is above being questioned, let alone criticized, by anyone. And he was assigned department employees to salute smartly and carry out his every wish.

Well, Sheriff, welcome to life in a democratic society. People have rights and legal protections. They even have the right to disagree. And, yes, they have those pesky unions.

From the Journal Sentinel story:

Employees "shall not impart (agency business) to anyone except those for whom it is intended, or as directed by the sheriff or his designee, or as ordered by law," according to a copy of the directive the union provided Friday.

The directive, issued July 28, states that the purpose of the policy is to "ensure that an accurate dissemination of information is provided to those inquiring about organization business."

It also directs employees not to maintain any copies of reports and memos, "whether in manual or electronic format," at any location outside department offices without permission.The directive was issued two days after reports that Clarke had reassigned Deputy Michael Schuh, a 55-year-old bailiff, to a one-man foot patrol in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the city after he criticized the sheriff in a union newsletter

"Given the time frame and the context in which the directive arose, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the real 'threat' Sheriff Clarke seeks to quell is, in fact, embarrassment to himself," says the motion for the restraining order, made public late Friday afternoon.

Roy Felber, president of the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs' Association, the union that represents sheriff's deputies, said the intent of the directive is to prevent members from raising concerns over working conditions to association lawyers and to muffle dissent.

It would also inhibit mundane conversations about department work between deputies and their families and friends, and even prohibit association officials from discussing controversial matters between the union and management with news media, Felber said.

"In essence, what (Clarke) did to Deputy Schuh he's trying to do to the entire department," Felber said. "He's basically trying to censor us. It's a gag order."

Of course it is. The scary thing is, David Clarke doesn't see anything wrong with that.

Now, let me get this straight

Jessica McBride (AKA Jess Bucher) offered this tantalizing item on her blog:

Surprise Twist
There will be a surprise twist in the Waukesha County executive race on Monday morning. I know what it is, but I can't reveal it yet. All I will say is that I think it's a really good decision for all parties involved. But it will definitely surprise people because it's unexpected.

That makes sense. If it were expected, it probably wouldn't surprise people.

Civics lesson: Vetoes 101

Charlie Sykes is outraged, of course.

Jim Doyle, according to Sykes, was being arrogant and showing his "contempt for the law" when discussing a possible challenge to his budget vetoes. Sykes' comments (italicized paragraphs are from a Journal Sentinel story):

Jim Doyle yesterday gave us a glimpse at what may turn out to be his fatal weakness: his arrogance and his contempt for the law.

Maple Bluff - Gov. Jim Doyle said Friday that Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager's review of his controversial state budget vetoes will not influence his fight with Republican legislators, who argue that his changes exceeded his authority.

"It isn't going to have an effect - the vetoes are there, the vetoes are in place," Doyle said....

"It isn't like she can undo a veto," Doyle added.

In other words: I don't care what she she says because it doesn't matter what the law actually is and she can't stop me. Whatever the constitution says, nobody can stop me.

Actually, that's not what he said. He did say:

"This is a matter between the Legislature and governor," adding: "You can open up your civics book and, if the Legislature doesn't like a veto that I have issued, they have the final say: They can override that veto. And if they don't have the votes to override the veto, the veto stands. That's the way the system works."

Maybe it really is time to open up the civics book. Here's how the process works:

1. The legislature passes a budget.

2. The governor uses his line-item veto power to make changes.

3. The legislature, by a two-thirds vote of both houses, can override any of his vetoes, in which case the language reverts to the budget passed by the legislature.

That's all. There's nothing in the constitution about review by the attorney general or the Supreme Court.

It is true, of course, that the Supreme Court (not the attorney general) could rule that some of Doyle's vetoes are unconstitutional. But they had that opportunity several times when Tommy Thompson was governor, and every case they decided broadened his authority. At the moment, no one has even filed any legal action about the vetoes.

AG Peg Lautenschlager says she will review Doyle's vetoes, at the request of the Republican legislative leaders. She apparently will offer an opinion about whether Doyle acted legally. But that's all it will be -- an opinion. She is not the judicial branch, so her opinions do not hold the force of law. Doyle, who was AG for 12 years, would gladly have overturned some Thompson vetoes if he could. But he couldn't.

If Lautenschlager were to say that she thinks Doyle acted improperly, it might bolster GOP arguments in a lawsuit. But her opinion is not a substitute for a lawsuit. Aside from overriding those vetoes, the GOP's only recourse is to ask the court to overturn them. If that happens, all bets are off about what happens next -- a new budget? A cutoff of $400-million in state aid the schools now expect? Most likely, total chaos.

If the case actually goes to court -- which seems unlikely -- Doyle would obviously prefer that the AG agree with him and defend his vetoes in court. If she doesn't, it will give some ammunition to the Republicans, but that's all. Her opinion will not determine the outcome of the legal case. The justices will reach their own conclusions.

So what Doyle did on Friday was just state the facts. Lautenschlager's opinion,whatever it turns out to be, will not change any of his vetoes. Perhaps he could have said it more diplomatically, but Sykes and the Doyle-haters will hear what they want to hear, no matter how delicate the phrasing.

While Mark Green runs and hides,Ryan will debate on Social Security

Rep. Paul Ryan is one Republican who has not shied away from the hot potato of Social Security, unlike some other Wisconsin members of Congress like Mark Green, who pretends he never heard of the issue.

Now he's agreed to a debate Tuesday night in Janesville with someone who really knows the subject, and it's co-sponsored by at least one group that's hostile to Ryan's plan. He deserves some points, at least, for going into the lions' den. What a contrast with Green, who has refused to talk about the subject or even hold a town meeting.

Ryan has been upfront about his position and has not backed off, as the Racine Journal Times reports:

Despite stinging skepticism and opposition from high-ranking officials within the Social Security Administration, 1st District Congressman Paul Ryan is continuing his aggressive campaign to make personal retirement accounts a part of Social Security. Ryan, a Republican from Janesville, has pushed ahead as one of the most aggressive proponents of Social Security reform who faces re-election next year.

Ryan co-authored a bill introduced last month in the House of Representatives that would take surplus Social Security dollars and put them in personal investment accounts for those paying into Social Security. According to the bill, the personal accounts would be established for all workers under the age of 55, unless they choose to opt out.

The Social Security Administration's chief actuary said using money from the Social Security surplus to create personal retirement accounts would add $851 billion to the national debt over 11 years.

Ryan will debate Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is the co-author of a book, "Social Security: The Phony Crisis," published by the University of Chicago Press.

The debate will be at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 9, at Parker High School, 3125 Mineral Point Ave., Janesville. It is free and open to the public. Its sponsors include Wisconsin United to Protect Social Security, a coalition of groups opposed to privatization.

Wisconsin United to Protect Social Security has bedeviled Green to try to smoke him out and get him to speak publicly about the issue. But Green, a candidate for governor, has seen the polls telling him he's on the wrong side and has clammed up. The group has invited him to an event in Appleton next Saturday, but -- no surprise -- he hasn't responded.

Ohio 'victory' may not be what it seems

Democrats, elated over the 48% showing of their candidate, Paul Hackett, in a House special election in Ohio this week, should not be celebrating the results of the 2006 Congressional mid-term elections just yet.

That advice from Michael Crowley at the New Republic, who says, among other things:

[Hackett's] opponent was an uncharismatic, washed-up ex-state representative. And his candidacy combined two elements--his stirring Iraq service and the full firepower of the liberal blogosphere--in a way that few other Democrats will be able to replicate come fall of 2006.

Democratic bloggers loved Hackett's campaign and gave it a lot of attention. Crowley's piece includes a hilarious description of Hackett going online with the bigtime Dem blog, DailyKos. Turns out he doesn't speak the language.

Conservative bloggers support gay Judge Roberts

And now, for something completely different, as Python would say, from Wonkette:

Announcing: Conservative Bloggers Who Support The Gay Judge Roberts

[T]hough we rather doubt he is gay, if he is, that's just fine with us. Frankly, we don't give a damn. . . After all, there's some pretty underwhelming evidence from the Left that W is gay, but durnitall, we voted for him anyway.

What's more:
Still, assuming for the sake of argument that they are right, and Judge Roberts has performed legal work that helped homosexuals or, heaven forbid, he is even gay, we respond with a resounding: SO WHAT! You go, girl! Confirm her already!

Announcing: Conservative Bloggers Who Support The Gay Judge Roberts [Villianous Company]

New Group For Conservatives Who Support The Gay Judge Roberts [Conservative Bloggers Who Support The Gay Judge Roberts]

Helen Caldicott on Hiroshima Day

More than 20 years ago, in another lifetime, I was privileged to meet Dr. Helen Caldicott and bring her to Madison to talk about the dangers of nuclear war.

Dr. Caldicott is a remarkable person, an Australian physician who has devoted her life to educating people about nuclear dangers. She speaks eloquently about what would happen in the event of a nuclear war. Among other things, she founded International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which won a Nobel Peace Prize.

Today is the 40th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

What better day to check in with Helen Caldicott? A Grist interview.

HIROSHIMA REMEMBERS. Hiroshima fell silent as a relative of one of the more than 140 000 dead joined a child in ringing a bell at 8.15am (23h15 GMT on Friday), the exact moment 60 years ago when a single US bomb flattened the southern city.

How does it feel?

Bob Dylan's song "Like a Rolling Stone" topped a poll Friday to find the 100 songs, movies, TV shows and books that "changed the world" in the opinion of musicians, actors and industry experts, Reuters reports.

It was the "most revolutionary moment in popular culture." this story says.

The song prompted a 283-page book recently, which this insightful Australian columnist finds a bit ironic.

What does this have to do with politics?

If you need to ask, I don't think I could explain.

Republicans engage in fraud to make case about voter fraud

Wisconsin Republicans are determined to make "voter fraud" an issue in next year's campaign -- even if they have to resort to fraud to keep the issue alive.

The Wisconsin Republican Party, gov wannabe Rep. Mark Green, State Rep. Jeff Stone, and assorted conservative blogs who toe the party line all jumped on a story this week about a "report" from the American Center for Voting Rights, a group which says Milwaukee is the second worst place in the nation for voter fraud.

Trouble is, the group (we'll call them ACVR) is nothing more than a Republican front group, as anyone could learn if they know how to use the Google search engine.

Mark Green's campaign newsletter and website said the rating is, "Not the Kind of Hot Spot We Were Hoping For," and pushed photo ID cards for voters again.

The Republican party chimed in with a release, and Stone's release said the report highlights the need for election reform. (By the way, there was nothing new in the "report.")

Right wing bloggers jumped on it, with posts on Lakeshore Laments and BrainPost. The Lakeshore Laments post also made it to the Badger Blog Alliance.

The phony report did not make the mainstream media, as far as I can tell.

Brewtown Politico was the first to blow the whistle on the scam, and
Folkbum soon followed. And Badger Blues offered a broader perspective on the voting rights/fraud issue.

Here's the story:

Both of ACVR's main players are tied to the upper echelons of the GOP and are longtime Republican partisan operatives. Executive Director Mark F. "Thor" Hearne, has been a backroom player for years in the Missouri and national GOP parties and was most recently the National General Counsel for Bush/Cheney '04 Inc.

Press Spokesman Jim Dyke was the RNC Communications Director during the 2004 election, responsible for arranging to have operatives dress up in "Flipper" costumes at John Kerry election events. Dyke also worked as spokesman for Commerce Secretary Don Evans and as a lobbyist for Ed Gillespie's firm.

Here's a good clip on the group and the efforts of one blog to expose them. Iconoclast-Texas

And here is a rundown on the group, done by BradBlog,which actually interviewed Hearne and Dyke.

Finally, there is this:

Here now -- for the first time on the Internets -- is an Exclusive BRAD BLOG look at "8409 Pickwick Lane 299", the address for the Dallas, TX company who designed the website for the ACVR or -- perhaps even more likely -- the headquarters for the American Center for Voting Rights itself!...

Editorial embarrassment

By their nature, editorials are not objective. They offer opinions. They are not news stories.

But there is still an obligation to get the facts right. Often, that involves talking to someone on both sides of an issue.

But all too often editorials rely solely on what has already appeared in the same newspaper as a news story. When the story has a fact wrong, so does the editorial.

I'm not sure what the main malfunction was in this case, but the Journal Sentinel editorial on the State Elections Board case against Scott Walker was way off the beam.

The gist of the editorial is that Walker was treated unfairly, singled out for punishment, and fined more ($5000) than others who have committed similar offenses. The suggestion was that it was a partisan decision motivated by Walker's candidacy for governor.

Let's look a little more closely at the editorial. It says:

As Walker, a Republican candidate for governor, notes, the four Democrats on the board voted for the $5,000 forfeiture while the two Republicans and the Libertarian present at Wednesday's meeting voted against it. Walker also notes that the county Elections Commission reviewed the matter earlier this year and took no action.

FACT: The vote on whether Walker broke the law was bipartisan, 6-2. (I had incorrectly said 7-1.) The 5-3 split was over the size of the penalty. The fifth vote for the $5,000 fine was from the non-partisan appointee of the State Supreme Court.

ANOTHER FACT: The County Elections Commission never considered this issue, despite Walker's claims. The State Elections Board's attorney noted that in a memo to the board, which was available to the news media and even on this blog before the meeting. Walker's claim is simply not true, but the editorial prints it as fact. Walker's reply to the State Elections Board complaint said, under oath, that the County Election Commission had already reviewed the matter and found no violation. Board members questioned Walker's representative, John Hiller, who finally admitted that the County Election Commission did not review it or decide it.

Back to the editorial:

In the automated calls, Walker urged residents to call their county supervisors and tell them not to raise taxes and to maintain Walker's tax freeze. In the haste to get the calls out, Walker said the campaign and the private company that handled the calls failed to include a disclaimer. When Walker's campaign treasurer, Jim Villa, received one of the calls himself, he realized that the required disclaimer was missing and told the private company to stop the calls. Walker said his campaign did not know how many calls didn't contain a disclaimer, but he assumed "it was probably a majority, if not all" because most of the calls were made within a short time span.

FACT: John Hiller, not Jim Villa, is Walker's campaign treasurer. Villa at the time of the violation was a principal at the Markesan Group, the consulting firm working for Walker's campaign. Villa's firm contracted with a phoning firm to make the calls. (Villa is now Walker's chief of staff, but that's another story.) It was Hiller who received a call and told the campaign it needed a disclaimer. "Haste to get the calls out" is no defense; campaigns are always scrambling to meet deadlines under pressure, but are still expected to obey the campaign laws.

The editorial:

Walker makes another good point. He and others note that past infractions that were similar in nature have either been dismissed by the board or punished with much smaller fines, often around $500. That, of course, doesn't mean those decisions were right, but it does raise legitimate questions about precedence and the board's consistency. Walker said he was "flabbergasted" by the board's decision. Mike McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, said he, too, was surprised because the board traditionally has "looked the other way."

FACT: The large penalty was imposed not because Walker left a disclaimer off a phone call, but because his story kept changing and, as a lawyer would say, was at variance with the facts. The board simply didn't believe Walker's story, caught him in a lie about the County Election Commission, and was not pleased. The stories about whether the disclaimer was accidentally left off the call, or whether the Walker campaign ever intended to have one in the first place, didn't match up, either. Thus the heavier penalty was for the perceived coverup.

The editorial concludes:

One reason for that, McCabe correctly points out, is that the board is too partisan, dominated by the two major parties. The solution is a Senate bill that would merge the ethics and elections boards and put non-partisan citizen members in the majority to make the board more independent and effective.

FACT: The 6-2 vote to find Walker guilty of the violation was bipartisan. The 5-3 vote to fine him $5,000 included the Supreme Court representative, exactly the type of "non-partisan citizen member" McCabe suggests. The board has nine members -- 4 Democrats, 3 Republicans, one Libertarian, and the non-partisan member. (One of the Republicans, appointed by Speaker John Gard, was absent from Wednesday's meeting. Gard supports Walker's primary opponent, Rep. Mark Green. No editorial comment, just a fact.)

The editorial demonstrates what happens you only hear one side of a story. The Journal Sentinel apparently talked to Walker, talked to an outside campaign observer, but didn't bother to talk to the county supervisors who brought the complaint, their lawyer, or any of the elections board members who voted to fine Walker. Even the tiniest bit of due diligence would have produced a much different editorial.

And a different response from Walker would have produced a different result at the State Elections Board. A candidate who admits a mistake, takes responsibility for it, and says he will make sure it won't happen again will get a sympathetic ear, from regulators and the public. One who tries to deny responsibility or cover up gets some bad press and a $5,000 fine.

Naming 'best' Republicans a tough task, but here goes

"Who are the best Republicans?" I naively asked in a July 20 post, thinking I would get you do my job for me.

It all started with Dennis York, a conservative blogger who dwells in the shadows but writes some interesting stuff. I have no idea who he really is, however, and he seems to like it that way. Anyway, he did his list of best Dems a couple of weeks ago, and suggested I might try my hand at a similar project.

Little did I know what I was getting into. About two dozen people offered comments and suggestions, although very few paid any attention to my requests that they be e-mailed rather than posted, and include some rationale for the choices. Be that as it may, it was an interesting mix, and 30 different people were nominated. (One problem with the anonymous comments, of course, is that you don't know if they are from Rs or Ds, although some were obvious. I gave more weight to people willing to identify themselves and offer more than a list of names. And the nominations for Ziegelbauer and Plale were rejected.)

I discovered, in this process, that my personal knowledge of individual legislators is very limited. When you don't spend your days under the Dome (the center of the universe) and live 75 miles away, it is hard to make a judgment. Even those offering ideas were uncertain -- "if X is still in the legislature, he's be a good choice." (If you don't know whether he's still in the legislature, he must not be doing much.)

I certainly heard a variety of opinions.

"No Republican from the Assembly should be on the list because of their refusal to negotiate or think for themselves unless Scooter and Gard give the OK," one person wrote. Another: "No members of the Assembly GOP caucus qualify as the place is still in the grip of Jensen's terror. Little DeLay still rules the roost in the House." And there were few Assembly members nominated, perhaps for that reason.

State Rep. Dean Kaufert and State Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, co-chairs of Joint Finance, both were nominated. But there was also this comment from a Dem: "Not Kaufert or Fitzgerald. Anyone who led JFC should be excluded for sticking it to public schools and then lying about what they did." (I did borrow one technique from Joint Finance. I did all of my deliberation and decision-making in secret.)

And so it goes.

These were York's criteria, and I saw no reason to change them:

Honesty – Are these people genuine in what they believe, or overtly political? Do they say one thing and do another? Do they have ulterior motives behind their actions?

Integrity – How strong is their rhetoric? Do they criticize the other side constructively, or are they just partisan bomb throwers? Is there any moderation in their tone (not necessarily their positions) or do they merely criticize actions by Republicans as a knee-jerk reaction?

Reasonableness – Does this person strike you as someone that you could work with on issues and would give you a fair hearing? Even if you disagree, would he/she make an effort to understand your side?

So, in no particular order, here are the five who made the cut. I realize that my saying anything good about them may paint targets on their chests, when the next Republican Cultural Revolution sweeps through.

The envelope, please:

State Rep. Curt Gielow (R-Mequon). He's open to new thinking and creative ideas, knows how to work effectively with Democrats in a spirit of bipartisanship (as shown in his unique partnership with State Rep. Jon Richards in developing the Wisconsin Health Plan), and has the respect of colleagues from both sides of the aisle. Yet he maintains his credentials as a conservative Republican, and has the confidence of leadership in the Assembly.

State Sen. Mike Ellis (R-Neenah). I know, I know, Republicans think he's a Democrat or at least a RINO, but it wasn't too long ago he was their floor leader, so they must have seen some redeeming quality in him. He is someone who is more interested in the big picture and getting things done that engaging in partisan warfare or worrying about who gets the credit. So what on earth is he doing in the legislature?

Rep. Tom Petri, the one member of the state's Republican delegation in the House of Representatives who will actually listen to an argument, and occasionally (but not often enough) break the 4-4 deadlock and be persuaded to vote with the Democrats on the merits. The other three Repubs -- Green, Sensenbrenner, and Ryan -- march in lockstep with Bush, Hastert and DeLay. There's a reason Petri was the GOP rep in the Gaylord Nelson memorial service. He's a class act with a sense of humor. Now if he would only stand up to the highway lobby on the Transportation Committee. . .

State Sen. Luther Olsen (R-Berlin), who moved up from the Assembly and continues to have decent relationships with Democrats in both houses. That in itself is a rarity in Madison in 2005.

State Rep. Terry Musser (R-Black River Falls). An Assembly Republican with that rare quality, a willingness to listen to the other side, even if he isn't persuaded, and to be able to disagree on an issue without being disagreeable.

Honorary Pick: Supreme Court Justice David Prosser. Yes, he's a justice now and that's a non-partisan office, so he's technically not a Republican. Like Bill Bablitch quit being a Democrat when he went from the State Senate to the court, right? In his days as minority leader and as Speaker of the Assembly, Prosser was someone who met all of the criteria as a decent human being you could talk to, work with, and trust.

Others who might have made the list, except that I limited it to current elected officials: There were fond memories of former State Rep. Betty Jo Nelsen, a class act conservative who truly favored limited government, and not the intrusionist, Luddite version of today's stormtroopers. Honest, principled, hard-working and, most of all, a citizen legislator. Others mentioned former State Rep. and Congressman Steve Gunderson, who these days would probably be targeted as a RINO, and former State Sen. Peggy Rosenzweig, now a UW Regent, who already lost her seat to one of the Neanderthal caucus, and ex-Congressman Scott Klug.

Honorable mention: (Trying to make this list big enough so the neocons can't target them all.) State Rep. David Ward, State Sens. Dale Schultz and Rob Cowles, and State Treasurer Jack Voigt.

Dems push back hard on vetoes

Wisconsin Democrats, showing more spunk than they have in some time, have started to fight back against Republican attacks on Gov. Jim Doyle's budget vetoes.

State Chair Joe Wineke, in a release headlined, "Republicans Huddle with Lawyers to Plot $400 Million Property Tax Increase," says the GOP challenge to Doyle's action, if successful, would take $400-million in state aid away from public schools and put it on the backs of property taxpayers.

His point, besides trying to put the Rs on the defensive, is that the game legislative Republicans are playing is not some intellectual pursuit. It could have real, serious consequences -- consequences the GOP might not enjoy defending come election time.

Wineke, who served in both houses of the legislature in a former life, has always liked to mix it up with the other side.

State Sen. Judy Robson, the Dem minority leader, doesn't have that rep. She is more the voice of reason, so her opinion column was a little bit of a surprise:

Legislative Republicans love their lawsuits. Every time they can’t get their way in the legislative arena, they run to the courts.

As soon as Governor Doyle used his veto power to restore enough school funding to freeze property taxes, Republicans started talking about suing. “The Governor illegally increased school funding!” the Republicans wailed. Which begs the question: Who are they looking out for, anyway?

They’re not looking out for property taxpayers. They’re certainly not looking out for schoolchildren. They seem to be looking out only for their special interest friends.

Tough talk from Robson means the Dems aren't going to roll over and play dead on this issue. If the Repubs were successful at undoing Doyle's budget action and taking that money away from the schools, there could be a very high political price to pay. The Rs should be careful what they wish for.

Jess Bucher, Jessie McBride both upset

This from Jessica McBride/Bucher, who thinks I am sexist for calling her that:

And since [Xoff] raised it, I don't have a problem with him alerting his readers that I am the wife of Paul Bucher, AG candidate, when he posts on me. In fact, I disclose that fact on the side of my blog because I think people have a right to know. When I started writing a monthly column for wispolitics, I asked them to put that disclosure at the bottom of all my columns. Several people later mentioned to me that they thought it was sexist for me to have to do so, but I don't agree. As long as Paul's a statewide candidate, I feel it should be disclosed when I write about politics, even though my opinions do not represent his opinions and my political commentary predates his campaign. At the same time, people should not automatically assume that what I think or write matches what Paul believes. My opinions represent my opinions. Paul and I agree on a lot, but we don't agree on everything - no couple does. What has bothered me a little though is Christofferson thinking he can rename me by giving me a hyphenated name (or the equivalent of it: McBride/Bucher). What I call myself is my decision, not his, and I personally think it's a bit sexist of him to take it upon himself to rename me. I'm not losing sleep over it, trust me, but since he raised it....

I truly am not trying to be sexist. But I am a little confused about what she wants to be called. Her blog uses the name McBride's Media Matters and she signs her posts as Jessie, so that would make her Jessie McBride, right?

But on the same blog, her e-mail address is jessbucher@sbcglobal.net. That would make her name Jess Bucher, wouldn't you say?

So I guess I could call her Jessica McBride/Jess Bucher, but that seems a little unwieldy. So I just shortened it up to Jessica McBride/Bucher. I explained earlier that I do think her being a Bucher's spouse is relevant, and she seems to agree.

What's a guy to do?

Novak blows up, gets a time out from CNN

Robert Novak, on CNN with James Carville, lost his cool, yelled, "This is bullshit," and stormed off the set.

CNN says it has asked Novak to take some time off and get his meds back in balance.

Talk Left has the story and Crooks and Liars has a link to some video footage.

Has Novak been under some stress lately or something?

Hybrids, here we come!

As the proud owner of a new Toyota Prius (49 mpg so far), I am pleased as punch to share a couple of pieces of news from Grist, the online environmental magazine.

Hail the Cabs!
Hybrid taxis to hit the streets of New York City this fall

Six different hybrid models will debut in New York City's taxi fleet this fall, thanks to a recent vote by the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission. Some commissioners had previously expressed reservations about the leg room (or lack thereof) in hybrids, but after test drives, one termed Toyota's Prius and Highlander "surprisingly roomy." The commission didn't have much of a choice -- Mayor Mike Bloomberg forced its hand by signing a bill that gave it 90 days to approve hybrids -- but commission chair Matthew Daus seems converted to curbing gasoline use, saying, "Pardon the pun, but I think bigger cars need to take a back seat." Allowing six different models into the fleet will enable the commission to learn which hybrids stand up best to the beating they're likely to take on the streets of the Big Apple.

Hybrid Fidelity
Toyota plans 10 new hybrids, invites automakers to eco-summit

Toyota is developing 10 new hybrid models and aims within the next few years to be selling 1 million of the gas-electric vehicles annually worldwide. That, says the company's U.S. head, Jim Press, will mean about 600,000 new Toyota hybrids each year on American roads, including hybrid versions of nearly every model it offers. The auto honcho pooh-poohed recent complaints that hybrid tech is being used to increase engine power instead of fuel economy, blaming that fact on automotive software and consumer driving habits. He predicts drivers will someday be able to push a button to choose between performance and mileage. Press is also inviting fellow automakers to join Toyota for a closed-door corporate summit on global warming and other issues, to proactively develop strategies for fuel-economy standards before regulators beat them to it -- although regulators in California did beat them to it, and Toyota has joined the lawsuit against the state. But whatevs.

Pssst! Wanna dig up some dirt?Court records too open to suit some people

At least two sets of people -- newspaper editors and opposition researchers -- are upset by suggestions that Internet access to Wisconsin court records might be reduced or restricted.

The announcement by the state Supreme Court that it would reconvene an oversight committee to review the web site, commonly known as CCAP - Consolidated Court Automation Programs.

The site contains information from courts across Wisconsin about a wide range of legal cases. Get a speeding ticket in Waupaca County, as I did in 1996? It's in the data base. Have a lawsuit filed against you (again, as i did when working for the City of Milwaukee.)? It's in there, too. So is the fact that I filed a will in 1974 with the Dane County register of deeds.

The system isn't perfect, of course, and information is not always up to the minute, which can cause problems.

But the system is widely used. It gets between 2 million and 3 million "hits" every day. Who uses it? In his Journal Sentinel article, Lawrence Sussman says:

The site can be used by employers checking on prospective employees, parents curious about their daughter's boyfriend, or folks just checking on their neighbors.

Since April 1999, anyone with a computer has had easy access to these public court records. Just how far back the records go varies by county; in some cases, court records that are more than three decades old can be found online.

The data base, of course, is also an easy way to look for negative information about someone -- a political opponent, a romantic rival, or whoever.

When the story broke about the Door County woman who sent used hypodermic needles to John Gard (via the gov's office), Jessica McBride Bucher, looking for something to descredit her, went to the site and posted an item on her blog declaring that the woman had an "open criminal case." She had been charged with writing a bad check, but the case was closed the same day McBride/Bucher posted the item. She never reported the dismissal; I did.

State Rep. Marlin Schneider (D-Wis. Rapids) is on the 20-member committee that will review access to the site, and Schneider wants to limit it. Sussman's story:

Schneider said he has received a letter from a person who was charged with molesting his children during a divorce action.

A judge threw out the charge, "but that information is still in the record," Schneider said. "Whether it is true or not, these things have an impact on people's lives. And many people don't take the time to read the whole record. . . . "The problem," Schneider said, "is the misuse of this data either intentionally or unintentionally by people who may have an ax to grind or who just may want to gossip."

CCAP shows that Schneider had a $65,000 judgment against him as the result of an auto accident, the JS reported, as though that explains Schneider's opposition. In fairness, it should be pointed out that Schneider, for years, has been the champion in the legislature for people's right to privacy and has argued for keeping personal information private in other instances.

Schneider fears misuse and abuse of the information, and favors restricting access to court officials and law enforcement. "It also would be OK for the legitimate press to use this, but what is the legitimate press is too hard to define," he said.

The odds that anything will change are very slim. The issue has provoked the predictable outpouring of editorials from newspapers defending the public's right to access this information. And the public does have that right. Everything on the site is public record; what CCAP does is make it accessible in seconds, instead of requiring a citizen to drive to 72 county courthouses to search the files.

Want to see how it works? Look yourself -- or your neighbor, or your boyfriend, or your political opponent -- here.

Will Roberts' work for gays rile up Rs?

This Los Angeles Times story prompts a few questions:

By Richard A. Serrano, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay rights activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. He did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the high court, but he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case.

Gay rights activists at the time described the court's 6-3 ruling as the movement's most important legal victory. The dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Will Roberts have to explain himself to the many gay-bashers in the Republican Party as he tries to insure their votes for confirmation?

Will Rick Santorum think Roberts is a closet gay sympatizer?

Will the "I-was-just-representing-my-client" defense work in this case? It seldom works well for liberals.

Will SpongeJohn GardPants and the rest of the Republican yahoos in Wisconsin try to pass a constitutional amendment to prevent Roberts from making any decisions that expand gay rights or treat gays like regular humans?

Finally, will it make him more acceptable to some Ds? I think the answer to that one must be yes.

Rs want Hispanic vote, but don't vote for Hispanic interests

Republicans have gotten a lot of media mileage at campaign time about their efforts to reach out to minorities. In the presidential campaign, it was the Hispanic vote the Repubs were courting, with W even coming out with a Spanish sentence now and then.

But if Hispanics vote in their own interests, the Rs have a long ways to go.

The latest evidence of who Latinos' friends really are comes in a scorecard and report from the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, a non-partisan coalition of 35 national Latino civil rights and policy organizations.

The ratings covered 18 votes in the last Congress on issues involving the workforce, economic mobility, civil rights, health and immigration.

Overall, Democrats averaged 95%, Republicans 34%.

In Wisconsin, all six Democrats in the delegation scored 100%. On the Republican side, Mark Green -- the guy who's running to be governor of all the people of Wisconsin -- was at the bottom of the heap with 17%, tied with F. Jim Sensenbrenner. Green's Fox Valley district has a growing Latino population, but apparently they are not on Green's radar screen.

Rep. Paul Ryan got 22% and Tom Petri led the Wisconsin Rs with 28%.

No comment

You'll note there is no comment section today. It may or may not return. It is under review, as the attorney general's office might say.

In the meantime, feedback is always welcome via e-mail: XoffFiles@gmail.com.

Dems unified? In your dreams, Hillary

What is going on here, anyway? From the Washington Post, headlined, "Clinton Angers Left with Call for Unity":

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's call for an ideological cease-fire in the Democratic Party drew an angry reaction yesterday from liberal bloggers and others on the left, who accused her of siding with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in a long-running dispute over the future of the party.

Long a revered figure by many in the party's liberal wing, Clinton (D-N.Y.) unexpectedly found herself under attack after calling Monday for a cease-fire among the party's quarreling factions and for agreeing to assume the leadership of a DLC-sponsored initiative aimed at developing a more positive policy agenda for the party.

Much as I relish writing about the conservative purges in the GOP, it is one of the things I hate about Democrats.

There is a wing of the party -- yes, even in Wisconsin -- that believes any Democrat who wins an election must have sold out. And they may be on to something, if "selling out" means being less than 100% ideologically pure, as the test is applied by the party's fringe. (They like to call themselves the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, but they are only a wing on the Democratic bird, not the body.)

They are especially offended if someone they believe to be a fellow traveler on the left gets anywhere near a moderate. (They seem to have forgotten that Hillary's hubby came out of the DLC, and turned out to be the best (and almost only) President Democrats have elected in 40 years. In Wisconsin, Gov. Jim Doyle isn't liberal enough to suit the left wingers, either. But he's the first governor Democrats have elected in 16 years, and the last purist who ran got 40% of the vote.

While the national lefties focus their frustration on Hillary, who are the other contenders for President on the D side? The other speakers at the DLC meeting were: Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, the newly named DLC chairman; Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), the outgoing DLC chairman; and Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, who just concluded a year as chairman of the National Governors Association. She's to the left of all of them, but she's the one who draws the flak.

Hillary asks everyone in her party to quit trying to kill each other off, and what happens? She ends up being used for target practice by the ideologues.

I don't have a candidate for President yet. I just hope that in the fight for the nomination, we can refrain from the usual fratricide. After last week's reaction, that hope seems pretty futile.

Quote, unquote

The White House is changing the name of “the war on terrorism” to “the struggle against violent extremism.” And the “war on poverty” is now the “tussle of insufficient funds.”

-- Will Durst, The Progressive.

---

UPDATE: Bush, however, likes to be The War President, so he went out of his way Wednesday to say "war on terror, war on terror, war on terror" in a speech. NY Times story.

Wonkette offers a synopsis of the speech:

"We're at war," he said. Then he reminded us, "We're at war against an enemy." And in case people weren't listening, he said, "Make no mistake about it, this is a war." Then he outlined what we're going to do "to win this war on terror," explaining that "part of winning this war on terror is to remind others of what's at stake." But who is the war against? It's been 2 seconds so you may have forgotten. Ah: "This war is against killers who hide, and then they show up and kill innocent life." Feeling vengeful yet? Because "Iraq is the latest battlefield in the war on terror." Of course, there are consequences: Those "who have lost their lives...in this war on terror have died in a noble cause." Bush then revealed what he, personally, is doing for the cause: "We got a big task in Washington, D.C., and that's to remember the stakes of the war on terror."

Sensenbrenner and the Chamber

I speculated in a recent post about what Rep. F. Jim Sensenbrenner could want to say to the US Chamber of Commerce so desperately that he would use his chit on a pro-CAFTA vote to get an audience with the Chamber CEO, Thomas Donahue.

Here's a theory advanced by one of the people in the Xoff Files' Washington Bureau.

Sen. Russ Feingold asked, in a Green Bay Press Gazette op ed:

"Why won’t Congress stand up for working Americans and business owners and against more painful trade-offs being made in the name of a deeply flawed trade policy?

Perhaps the answer comes from a recently reported story where “a prominent business leader ... laid it on the line: Business groups are prepared to cut off campaign contributions to House members who oppose the pact.” The story said that Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, warned recently during a meeting on Capitol Hill, “If you [lawmakers] are going to vote against it, it’s going to cost you.”

The story he referred to was in the Washington Post, headlined, "CAFTA in Peril on Capitol Hill, One Business Leader Gives Lawmakers an Ultimatum." Link.

Sensenbrenner got the message, doesn't like to be threatened, and wanted to tell Donohue that personally, the theory goes. Best explanation I've heard so far. Others?

America Coming Together scaling way back, may be closing up shop in Wis.

America Coming Together (ACT), which built the largest voter mobilization campaign in Democratic history in Wisconsin and 11 other battleground states last year, is "scaling back" its operation almost all the way to zero.

The Wisconsin office seems likely to close, since the Washington Post reports that ACT "this week began sending e-mails to most of the 28 people who make up the remaining ACT staff warning that their paychecks would stop at the end of August. All the state offices have been, or are soon to be, closed."

The Wisconsin operation, run by Tamara Pogue, was huge last fall, conducting door-to-door canvasses that targeted a half million voters and helped drive turnout 20 percent above projections in some areas of the state, but had shrunk to a handful of staff since the election.

"Presently, it is unlikely that we will be able to maintain our existing structure in Wisconsin; however, those decisions will be made as we continue to evaluate our position," ACT's national office said in a statement.

Billionaire George Soros was ACT's main financial angel, but the group said it raised a total of $142 million from more than 100,000 donors last year. Steve Rosenthal, former political director of the AFL-CIO, ran the organization. The Post says Soros was disheartened by John Kerry's loss in the presidential race and has closed his checkbook. Rosenthal will stay involved with ACT but also do other consulting work, the story says.

"[W}e have found that it is extremely difficult to raise the kind of money necessary to sustain a voter mobilization organization this large in the off-year. Thus we have concluded that it is necessary to substantially scale back ACT's operation," the group's statement said. "ACT was the right organization to accomplish this work in 2004. Over the next several months we will review models to determine the best ways to move forward into 2006 and 2008."

ACT said it will "continue to conduct an in-depth review of the 2004 data - including an in-the-works precinct-level analysis of the battleground states. ACT will also be using the 2005 elections to conduct research which will help Democrats prepare a blueprint for winning an increased share of exurban voters in 2006 and turning out "infrequent voters" - which will help provide the keys to 2006 and 2008 successes."

The ACT numbers from 2004 were impressive. In 12 battleground states, ACT opened 78 field offices with 2,600 full-time staff, 3,269 hourly canvassers and 80,000 Election Day workers. Over a nine-month period, ACT workers had 7.1 million face-to-face conversations with voters, knocked on 16 million doors, made 23 million phone calls and sent 15 million targeted mailings.
It also registered 450,000 new voters and built voter files including individual data on 63.5 million voters in 15 states.

Presumably, ACT or some other group will rise from the ashes in time for the next presidential election in 2008. But the news is bad for Wisconsin Democrats organizing for 2006.

Elections board doesn't buy Walker's story

The state Elections Board has asked Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker's campaign to pony up $5,000 to settle a complaint filed by two county supervisors over phone calls placed by Walker's campaign without identifying who paid for them.

Walker's campaign made 40,000 recorded calls in November to urge people to call their county supervisors and ask them to support Walker's budget. (I had it wrong earlier, and said the calls asked for a "yes" vote in a referendum on a pension borrowing scheme Walker was promoting. He did that with taxpayer-paid e-mail, and his county election commission said it was OK.)

Walker had tried to claim the County Elections Commission had already dismissed the matter, which turned out not to be true.

Walker's campaign said it corrected the error after some of the calls had already gone out, and tried to blame the vendor for failing to include the disclaimer, but the Elections Board didn't buy that, either.

The board's counsel, George Dunst, laid out the issue in a memo discussed here on Tuesday. The complaint was filed in May by Milwaukee County Supervisors John Weishan, Jr. and Gerry Broderick. The settlement offer came on a 5-3 vote.

UPDATE: Journal Sentinel headline calls it a fine; story says it's a forfeiture. Walker's campaign doesn't say if it will pay, whatever it is.

UPDATE 2: Jessica McBride/Bucher admits Walker's had a bad month, but minimizes the Elections Board issue because -- gasp! -- her investigation has found that the people who filed the complaint, their lawyer, and some members of the board are Democrats who don't like Walker. Who else would file and pursue a complaint? Of course it's political, but that doesn't change the basic fact that Walker broke the state law. What really hurt him wasn't failing to put a disclaimer on a phone call; it was the denial and attempted coverup. (Why do I add Bucher to her name? I think it's relevant that she is married to DA and would-be AG Paul Bucher. Among other things, Bucher sponsored a Walker fund-raiser in April. If I were married to Peg Lautenschlager, do you think my readers should know that? (I'm not, just for the record. I am married to Hillary Clinton, as many of you have suspected for some time.)

Quote, unquote

"The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it."

—George W. Bush, on the probe into how CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity was leaked, Washington D.C., July 18, 2005

Bush opens door to scientific discussion

This just in:

Bush endorses 'intelligent design'
Contends theory should be taught with evolution

By Ron Hutcheson, Knight Ridder August 2, 2005

WASHINGTON -- President Bush waded into the debate over evolution and ''intelligent design" yesterday, saying schools should teach both theories on the creation and complexity of life.

In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools.

In other news, Bush also endorsed:

-- Giving equal credence to the theory that the sun revolves around the earth, instead of vice versa.

-- More federal research on the possibilities of turning lead into gold.

-- Using flat maps of the earth as well as globes in classrooms, in case it turns out the planet really is flat. I mean, who knows for sure?

Human rights in Milwaukee County jail

Prisoners are held improperly for long periods of time. They are sleep-deprived, denied showers or a change of clothes, or even toilet paper or tampons, live in filth, aren't allowed their medications, and are fed nearly inedible meals.

Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo Bay?

No, the Milwaukee County jail, according to statements provided by inmates as part of a lawsuit against Sheriff David Clarke.

The Story Hill website has the details and the documents.

My favorite detail is that some inmates, having no bedding, used some of the inedible bologna sandwiches for pillows.

This may provoke some comments about how like should not be a bed of roses when you're in jail. But these conditions are in the booking area, for people who have not even been to court yet, in many cases, let alone convicted of anything.

Finley steps in it; talkers turn on him

It didn't take long for Dan Finley, heretofore darling of the radio talkers, to get himself into trouble once he decided to leave his office as Waukesha County exec.

Finley hadn't even had time to start drawing his $180,000-plus paycheck yet when he boldly proposed a new regional cultural district, to oversee several attractions, including the Milwaukee Public Museum, which will soon head.

The Regional Journal Sentinel, of course, liked the idea right off the reel, as Lee Dreyfus used to say. It likes everything regionalized. Baseball stadiums, water rights, culture, you name it. Well, maybe not sewers. But for the most part, all things regional are in vogue.

But the conservatives were having none of it. Charlie Sykes talked and wrote about it, and Jeff Wagner also chimed in on TMJ. (I assume Mark Belling had something to say, too, but since I haven't heard him for about 10 years I can't really say.) And Dad29 piled on, too.

When you say "regional authority" or "district" or anything of the sort, what people hear is T-A-X in the form of another taxing authority.

Finley carefully didn't say that, but he didn't need to. From the JS story:

Racine County Executive William McReynolds proclaimed the cultural district "dead on arrival . . . because all you're talking about is a new tax for the region, and I won't support a new tax. . . . It's a Miller Park tax."

Finley did not specify how such a district would be financed, but said: "This is not about suggesting a new tax."

McReynolds scoffed at that comment, saying: "Sure it would (require a tax). If you're talking about a new district, you need a new tax. How else are you going to pay for it?"

State Rep. Steve Nass, a fellow Republican, joined the chorus in a story today.

Finley said when he accepted the job at the museum that it was unlikely he would ever return to politics. At this rate, it won't even be an option.

And his wife, Jenifer, a rumored candidate for Finley's county exec job, can't be too happy he's driving up the family's negatives.

Rs narrowly hang on to Ohio House seat

Republican Jean Schmidt eked out a 52-48 victory over Dem and Iraq vet Paul Hackett Tuesday in a special election for a vacant House seat in Ohio.

But it should give the Rs some pause about the '06 mid-term elections.

The former Republican Congressman, Rob Portman, had carried the district with 70% of the vote, and President Bush got 64% there last November. AP story.

Political newsletter editor Charlie Cook, as close as we come these days to an informed but impartial observer, wrote this before the polls opened: Cook Report.

Bottom line: Schmidt, the Republican, is still favored to win the election, but don't rule out the possibility of an upset, given the vagaries of August special election voter turnout and the problems unique to Ohio this year. But even assuming a GOP win tonight, the margin of victory can give us some insight into just how radioactive the governor's troubles and the "time for a change" sentiment in the state will be for other Republicans in the Buckeye State next year.

If Schmidt's victory margin is in double digits, this tells us that there is not much of an anti-GOP wind in Ohio right now. If the margin is say six to nine points for Schmidt, then there is a wind, but certainly no hurricane. A Schmidt win of less than five points should be a very serious warning sign for Ohio Republicans that something is very, very wrong, while a Hackett victory would be a devastating blow to the Ohio GOP.

Deputy gets partner; sheriff gets vacation

Milwaukee County's most famous deputy sheriff, Michael Schuh, has been assigned a partner and will no longer have to walk the beat alone in one of Milwaukee's most dangerous neighborhoods.

Sheriff David Clarke, who sent Schuh there because he couldn't think of any worse assignment to give him, insists it is all part of a plan. Right.

The sheriff, no doubt exhausted from walking the beat a few hours himself last week to try to save some face, has taken a week off, leaving someone else to answer the questions about his disastrous decision to retaliate against Schuh. Story.

Jessica McBride/Bucher writes as though this is Clarke's first offense of being an arrogant egomaniac, but he actually has a history of mistreating and retaliating against subordinates who dare to disagree or question him. McBride/Bucher makes it sound as though Clarke has seen the error of his ways, at least from a PR perspective, has fixed the problem, and has the conservative talkers back in his camp.

That's not the impression you get from WTMJ's Jeff Wagner's online piece, (written three days after Jessica's) which suggests several things Clarke should do, including ending his phony "program" and putting Schuh back in the courthouse where he belongs. Maybe Clarke will read it when he gets back to town.

The pillow talk at the Finleys'

Dan Finley has had enough as Waukesha County exec, but his wife Jenifer thinks maybe it isn't such a bad job. Finley referred to his spouse as "the candidate" in talking to a reporter. Laurel Walker's Journal Sentinel column speculates about life at the Finleys' these days.

Meanwhile, Dan is driving up the family's negatives. Link.

High praise for Doyle from frequent critic

Capital Times Editor Dave Zweifel, whose newspaper has not exactly been a cheering section for Gov. Jim Doyle, likes what Doyle did with his budget vetoes, to say the least.

"Doyle comes through for Wisconsin" is the headline on Zweifel's column.

Doyle doesn't get a free pass; Zweifel doesn't like levy limits, for example.

But his closing line is one that Doyle detractors on the left should heed:

For all that we hold dear in Wisconsin, the next two years would have been trouble, indeed, had this governor not been there.

Indeed.

Gard, GOP still don't get stem cell issue

While Republicans in Congress are figuring it out, and even Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is joining to support expanded stem cell research, Wisconsin's legislative Republicans continue to dance to the tune of the anti-abortion, anti-sex, and anti-science loonies.

But Assembly Speaker John Gard & Co. either fear those fringe groups for some reason, or believe them to be their political base. (Scary, huh?)

The controversy over a bag of needles delivered to Gard ended last week with an apology from the governor's office. But an AP story on the apology quoted Gard's spokesman thusly: "Sending a bag of biowaste doesn't change the fact that you can still do stem cell research in Wisconsin. What we're against is cloning."

Either Gard's people don't get it or they are blowing smoke.

The bill Gard's Assembly passed in this session would have outlawed stem cell research going forward. Yes, they banned human cloning which everyone agrees with, but they also banned therapeutic cloning, which is where the research is headed.

We're not talking about cloning people. We're talking about cloning cells for research.

Jamie Thomson, the UW researcher who is a pioneer in embryonic stem cell research and made a breakthrough discovery, was upset enough about the "cloning" bill that he wrote a letter to the legislature, first reported here a month ago. He warned:

"(O)ur state's economy will be left behind ...Restrictive legislation in the area of stem cell research will create a perception that this state is generally hostile to science. Technology companies will locate in other states, and top faculty candidates will go to other universities."

The current attempts at legislation here are known nationally, and the response in the scientific community outside this state ranges from bewilderment to contempt."

Here are some of the statements in a Journal Sentinel story when the bill was being considered:

Alta Charo, a bioethics professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School in Madison, said the bill goes too far. Therapeutic cloning is important in studying illnesses with genetic components that researchers don't fully understand, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and heart disease, she said.

Charo said she was troubled by banning wide areas of study at a time when researchers do not know where their work will lead.

"Scientific research is unpredictable," she said. "That's its nature. It's serendipitous. . . . You can't even predict what you're denying yourself."

John C. Rogers, a founding member of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, agreed. The group, whose members include UW-Madison and Harvard University, advocates for stem cell research and therapeutic cloning.

"There's so much that the scientists don't know about disease," he said. "If you could take and replicate the disease - Parkinson's or juvenile diabetes - they'll have an exponentially better idea about how to treat the disease."

Putting limits on allowable practices would make it more difficult to attract researchers and grants to Wisconsin, he added.

Waclaw Szybalski, professor emeritus of oncology at UW-Madison, said the proposed ban would halt important research.

"I can't imagine how stupid you could get . . . It's like you want to stop vaccination, you want to stop surgery, you want to stop all medical practice," he said.

He said lawmakers are overly cautious on the matter.

"They say, 'Let's wait, let's worry, let's think,' " he said. "Every year they delay, another 50,000 people die."

Calling it cloning is a way to try to play on people's fears and science fiction stories about humans being cloned for body parts. Democrats tried to separate the issues when the bill was in the Assembly, to give the wingnuts a chance to show they weren't really against stem cell research but still vote to ban human cloning. The Republicans rejected that offer and passed their own restrictive bill, with huge fines and long prison terms for any Wisconsin researcher who crosses the line. Fortunately, Gov. Jim Doyle won't let that become law.

UPDATE: Great Minds Think Alike Department: Tom Still, a reasonable Republcan, agrees in his column on WisOpinion.

Walker slips and slides, even on small issues

An issue that Scott Walker and his attorney have tried to dismiss as a non-issue that has already been decided in Walker's favor could come back to bite him at Wednesday's meeting of the State Elections Board.

At issue is a complaint that Walker's campaign paid for 40,000 calls to voters in November, urging them to call their supervisors and ask them to support Walker's county budget proposal.

Although it was being paid for by a campaign committee, Walker's calls went out without the required disclaimer saying who was paying for them. Two Milwaukee County supervisors filed a complaint.

Walker's camp has argued that the County Elections Board has already cleared him of any wrongdoing. Walker also used his favorite excuse -- it was someone else's fault.

Elections Board Counsel George Dunst, in a memo to the board, is skeptical of some of Walker's arguments, to say the least.

The board itself is free to do whatever it decides on the matter, including ignoring Dunst's advice or opinion, as it has been known to do at times. But Dunst makes these points:

1. The matter was never decided by the County Elections Commission, since the disclaimer issue never even came up there. The commission's decision was on an entirely different question -- as Walker & Co. well know.

2. Walker's claim that the disclaimer was supposed to be on the recorded calls, but was somehow left off by the vendor, doesn't hold water. In his filing, Walker says his campaign wasn't even sure if a disclaimer was required, but when someone called to tell his campaign there was no disclaimer on the calls, they contacted the vendor to add it. But the call center that did the calls does not confirm that, and has no explanation other then they ended up adding the disclaimer eventually after complaints.

It sounds like Walker did not initially think it was necessary, then got a complaint from someone who received a call, then tried to fix things after more than 20,0000 calls had already gone out in violation to state law.

Walker is claiming the disclaimer was always on there when his campaign sent it to the call center, but Dunst doesn't really believe that argument. His memo says:

The Markesan Group's [Walker's campaign consultants] statement that "A digital recording of the disclaimer was immediately added" together with CallingPost Communications' statements that "We have no information or explanation for the lack of a disclaimer on the Friends of Scott Walker recorded message that was initially distributed on November 4, 2004," and that "a disclaimer was added" are very tepid support, at best, for the campaign's contention that the original text of the phone message contained a source identification; and, at worst, suggest that disclaimer was added after complaints were received and the campaign realized that it would have to "add a disclaimer," -- especially in light of the campaign's statement that, "While it is not entirely clear if one was legally necessary or not, when the call was recorded it did include a disclaimer." One might have expected either (or both) Markesan and CallingPost to accept responsibility for the omission-- if the text distributed to them included the disclaimer.

That is lawyer talk for "I don't believe you."

Is this a big deal? Not in the grand scheme of things. It's not a capital offense, and may get Walker a reprimand or nothing.

But how he and his campaign have handled it -- slipping and sliding, backfilling -- however you want to describe it, it does not speak well for how Walker and his campaign people operate. If they bob and weave on a little issue like this, what will happen when they really get in trouble?

UPDATE: State Elections Board fines Walker $5,000. JS Story. Xoff post.

Quote, unquote

-- Time's Verbatim.

Social Security changes are dead -- all dead

``There's different kinds of dead,'' he said. ``There's sort of dead, mostly dead and all dead. This fella here, he's only sort of dead.''

Until two weeks ago, Social Security reform was sort of dead. But now it seems to be all dead.

That and more from Kevin Hassett at Bloomberg.

Green catching flak on CAFTA vote

Rep. Mark Green cast the deciding vote last week to pass CAFTA, the Central American Fair Trade Agreement.

OK, 216 other members cast the deciding vote, too, but the bill passed 217-215 after a frantic scramble and a lot of promises and horse trading by Republican leaders.

But if Green had voted no, the bill would not have passed, barring someone else switching his/her vote.

But Green's vote is almost never in doubt, because he is part of the GOP hierarchy in the House, has his nose pretty close to Tom DeLay's rear end, and is actually one of DeLay's assistant majority whips in the House, who helps corral GOP votes. That, along with the $20,000 in PAC contributions DeLay has given Green, helps explain why Green votes with DeLay 91% of the time.

But now Green wants to be governor of Wisconsin. It is reasonable to expect that he might take a broader view, rather than voting what's best for Tom DeLay and George W. Bush.

CAFTA is not good for Wisconsin, as the Capital Times points out in its editorial, "Wall Street vs. Wisconsin." That's why Badger state labor, farm, consumer and environmental groups opposed it. The Cap Times said:

Green did not vote for CAFTA as a Republican. Twenty-seven Republicans, including some of the most conservative members of the House, withstood Bush administration pressure to back the deal.

And Green certainly did not vote for CAFTA as a Wisconsinite.

The case had been clearly and consistently made that CAFTA was a bad deal for Wisconsin. Designed to encourage the movement of manufacturing and warehousing industries from the United States to Latin American countries, the agreement poses a particular threat to manufacturing states such as Wisconsin.

CAFTA will, as well, encourage the development of industrial agriculture in Central American countries, with an eye toward flooding the U.S. market with food products that will undermine the viability of small farmers such as those who continue to form the backbone of Wisconsin agriculture.

So, if Green did not vote as a Republican or as a Wisconsinite for CAFTA, whose interests did he represent?

The man who says he wants to be the chief executive of our state voted as a representative of the Wall Street interests that have abandoned workers and communities in Wisconsin and in Central America to advance an agenda that favors only their corporate bottom lines.

If Mark Green were running for governor of Wall Street, his vote would have been appropriate.

But Green is running for governor of Wisconsin and, as such, his vote should serve as a clear indication that he is the not the man for the job.

"Congressman Green should be ashamed,” said Sara Rogers, Executive Vice President of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO. “He voted against decent treatment for our Dominican and Central American brothers and sisters, and he voted against working families.

Just like NAFTA, CAFTA does not include meaningful protections of workers’ rights -– but it gives trade breaks to countries that violate worker’s rights. CAFTA will expand NAFTA’s legacy of lost jobs, low wages and trampled worker’s rights to six more countries, she said.

“Mark Green knows that CAFTA won’t magically end poverty or terrorism or illegal immigration. He knows that CAFTA will send more decent-paying Wisconsin jobs offshore, not create significant new export markets. He knows that CAFTA will do nothing to improve U.S. or Wisconsin competitiveness and stem our intractable trade deficit. But in the end, Mark Green chose party loyalty and corporate bucks over the people of Wisconsin,” Rogers said.

Think this might be an issue next year?

Are Republicans losing their strategic touch?

That's Jim Rowen's question in a Milwaukee Insight column cataloguing some recent blunders by Republican legislators -- and, of course, Sheriff David Clarke, the Republican in sheep's clothing.

Stop me if you've heard this one . . .

A secret plan to end the war? That's what Newsweek suggests in its story, titled: "Drawing Down Iraq: Drastic troop cuts are in the Pentagon's secret plans."

Hmmm, where have we heard something like that before? Oh, right, the President who wasn't a crook. How'd that war turn out?

Quote, unquote

"He speaks very well. He speaks a lot. He responds to you. He wants to engage you. And God bless him, when he was done, it was like, 'What did he tell us?' Nothing."

-- Sen. Herb Kohl, a Senate Judiciary Committee member, on his private meeting with Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.

See F. Jim in the flesh, so to speak

I'm not in the habit of announcing events for politicians on this blog, but we'll make an exception.

Rep. F. Jim Sensenbrenner, who's been all over the media for the past month on every issue under the sun, will be back in his suburban district for at least a little bit of the August recess, presumably before he jets off on another junket financed by some lobbying organization. F. Jim, Frequent Flyer.

Constituents who may have questions or comments about what F. has been up to lately can find him at these locations this week:

Tuesday, August 2, 9 a.m., Shorewood Village Hall

Thursday, August 4, 9 a.m.,Wauwatosa Public Library & 7 p.m., Hartford City Hall

Apparently F. is under the impression that none of the folks in Tosa or Shorewood have jobs, so 9 a.m. should be convenient for everyone, if they get up that early.

Y'all come. Who knows? Maybe the news media will even show up this time. They didn't last time, and missed an interesting story.

Oink! Oink! What's that smell? Could it be the transportation bill?

Amidst cries of, "I've got mine!," a big, fat porker of a transportation bill has passed the Congress.

Depending upon which newspaper you read, you got a very different view of what happened.

The Journal Sentinel, reporting from a parochial point of view, declared it a bonanza for Wisconsin. Happy days are here again. Some federal money might actually come to Wisconsin for a change, and as the hog farmers say, we are certainly tired of sucking hind teat here in the Badger state.

The New York Times painted a different picture of what went on, in its story.

It told of Rep. Don Young heading home for Alaska with about $1-billion in pork, noting:

About one-fourth of that money will be spent to build one of the biggest bridges in the United States, a mile-long, 200-foot-high span that will connect Ketchikan, a town with fewer than 8,000 people, to an island that has 50 residents and a small airport.

Did I mention that Young, a Repub, chairs the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the House? Here's more:

Almost all members of Congress got some project or another in their district. In what he called the "pork pecking order," Mr. {Keith] Ashdown [of Taxpayers for Common Sense] calculated that in addition to the nearly $1 billion that went to Mr. Young's district, which is all of Alaska, the district of the senior Democrat on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, James L. Oberstar of Minnesota, can count on about $150 million. Other senior committee members got $60 million to $90 million, and junior members got about $40 million for their constituents.

In Wisconsin, Rep. Tom Petri is a committee member and he, too brought home the pork, er, bacon, for his district. The JS reports:

U.S. Rep. Tom Petri, a Fond du Lac Republican, led the battle to improve the state's funding, from his post as vice chairman of the House Transportation Committee. An aide said he was not available for comment but released a written statement in which Petri said: "The increase in spending will mean 10,000 new jobs for our state. . . . It has been a struggle to craft this bill and to be fair to every region, but its importance would be hard to exaggerate."

In addition to the highway and transit formula money, the bill sends more than $480 million to Wisconsin for specific projects. By contrast, a single congressional district in Illinois - the northwest suburban Chicago area represented by Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert - captured some $200 million.

Two big highway projects together accounted for about one-quarter of the money directed specifically at Wisconsin.

The bill earmarks $50.8 million for Milwaukee's Marquette Interchange construction, in addition to money flowing from the highway formula. State and federal officials have said that all federal funds together will likely contribute about $440 million of the $810 million price tag for rebuilding the crossroads of I-94, I-43 and I-794.

Projects to upgrade U.S. Highway 41 will take another $77 million beyond what the formula would provide, and the highway's name itself will be upgraded to Interstate 41 between the Milwaukee area and Green Bay. Much of Highway 41 lies in Petri's district, including the bridge over Lake Butte des Morts that alone will cost $28 million to rebuild.

Bet you're reading this thinking that's great, those Wisconsin projects are really needed. That's what the people in Alaska are saying about their bridges, too.

"The problem is that there is no way to know what's worthy and what's not," said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a budget watchdog organization. "There's not a competitive review or any real process."

So who would vote against something stuffed with goodies for every state and district in the nation? Just about no one. In this case, four Senators and eight members of the House voted no.

One of the "no" votes was cast by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, the Badger Republican I try to bash at least three times a week on this blog, just to keep my edge.

His spokesman said that Sensenbrenner voted "no" because "it was laden with pork." This is one of those rare times when I agree with F. Jim.

You could smell the sausage being stuffed into its casings way out here on Lake Buttes des Morts. Maybe if Wisconsin pigged out on federal money more often it wouldn't be quite as tasty to our delegation and the media as it seems to be this time.

Their attitude seems to be: "What the hell, we've got ours, for a change. "