-- Steve Sack, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, via Cagle.

Hillary takes a baby step

In line with my theory that no one can who continues to support the debacle in Iraq can be elected president, Sen. H. R. Clinton makes a small movement in the right direction, just four days behind Joe Biden. Not enough from either of them, but something.

Bush: Three more years of war

"America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins," Bush said to the audience of uniformed U.S. Navy midshipmen. "America will not abandon Iraq so long as I am commander in chief."-- President Bush in today's speech.

Prepare yourself for three more years of American casualties as we pursue this no-win strategy.

UPDATE: Russ Feingold reacts: “While today’s speech by the President was billed as yet another attempt to lay out a plan for finishing the military mission in Iraq, the only new thing the administration gave the American people was a glossy 35-page pamphlet filled with the same rhetoric we’ve all heard before. Today’s action by the White House isn’t a step forward, it’s a step back. In fact the booklet the administration released to accompany the President’s speech is described as a “…document [that] articulates the broad strategy the President set forth in 2003…” That alone makes it clear that the President seems more dug in than ever to the same old “stay the course” way of thinking. This is not a strategy, and it certainly is not a plan to complete the military mission in Iraq."

Quote, unquote

"People don't want me making decisions based on politics," Bush said. "They want me making decisions based on the recommendations of our generals on the ground. And that's exactly who I'll be listening to."-- President Bush.

Paul Soglin comments.

Victim's family won't be victimized

It was good to read that the family of Teresa Halbach won't let themselves be used as political pawns. Too often, a combination of grief-stricken families and pandering politicians have inappropriately pushed those famlies into the spotlight on controversial issues.

Brewtown Politico comments on the Post-Crescent story.

Green cozies up to the President

We suggested a couple of weeks ago that Rep. Mark Green's fortunes may be tied to those of the increasingly unpopular George W. Bush -- and even more so to the Iraq war, which Green continues to champion. Post.

But the Green campaign wants to dispel any doubts about whether Green might try to get a little distance from W. This week's e-newsletter pushes back at primary opponent Scott Walker and puts Bush right on the ticket with Green in next year's governor's race. From the newsletter:

Photo of the Week

Last week in their email update, Mark’s primary opponent reprinted a column arguing that while most people believe Mark is the best candidate to beat Doyle, that reality might be in jeopardy because of Mark’s strong support for President Bush and his work on the War Against Terrorism. Here are a few excerpts from the column the Walker Team promoted:

Most Republican and Democratic insiders have tabbed Mark Green as the more formidable opponent against incumbent Gov. Jim Doyle and the favorite over Walker in the Republican primary.

Green looked squeaky clean, with a congressional record that might help and wouldn't hurt, being largely irrelevant in a gubernatorial campaign. All Green needed was a mediocre or better approval rating for President George Bush and congressional Republicans, and the specifics of his record might not have mattered.

But in the post-Katrina, post-Scooter Libby world, Bush's approval rating has plummeted and is likely to stay in the basement as long we remain at war in Iraq.

While we aren’t buying that argument for one second, we do know that Mark will stick to his principles and will never back down from his support of President Bush’s efforts to make our country and world a safer place by taking the battle to the terrorists before they attack us again. People have been writing George W. Bush’s political obituary for a long time now. The folks here at Green Team HQ have no doubt he’ll prove his critics wrong again.

Considering this new line of attack on Mark we thought this would be appropriate for this week’s POTW.

---

That may be great primary strategy to secure the Republican base, but I will be surprised if Mark Green asks the Pres to campaign with him next October. Once that primary's over, if public opinion continues to go in the direction it's headed, Mark Green will be pretending he never heard of George W. Bush or Iraq.

What about 'husband' and 'wife' don't gay-haters understand?

Scott Walker, in a statement on why we need a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, accidentally explains why we don't need such an amendment. Walker says:

"Current law already defines marriage as between a husband and a wife."

In their zeal to punish gays for being gay, Walker and the right want to go beyond banning gay marriages and deny gay couples other legal rights -- even those bargained by public employee unions in Madison and Milwaukee to provide health benefits.

They want us to believe that some liberal, activist Wisconsin court -- remember, we elect judges in Wisconsin -- is going to rule someday that "husband" and "wife" don't mean "man" and "woman."

I've said it before and will continue to say it as this shameful campaign continues. This constitutional amendment is worse than discrimination. It's a hate crime.

Group wants Garvey exonerated

When I saw the headline:

Group considers aggressive approach to exonerate Garvey

I assumed it must be the People's Legislature, trying to clear Fighting Ed's name. Then, when I saw the person holding things up was Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, it seemed like a Wisconsin story for sure.

What's that? Oh, that Garvey?

Never mind.

Rummy plays the name game

Insurgent, insurgent, bo-surgent, banana-fana-fo-surgent, mi-my-mo-murgent -- insurgent!

Reuters reports:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argued on Tuesday that the guerrillas fighting U.S.-led foreign forces and the American-backed government in Iraq do not deserve to be called an "insurgency."

Asked at a Pentagon news conference why he did not think the word insurgency applied to enemy forces in Iraq, Rumsfeld said he had "an epiphany."

"I've thought about it. And, over the weekend, I thought to myself, you know, that gives them a greater legitimacy than they seem to merit," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld instead referred to the guerrillas in Iraq as "the terrorists" and "the enemies of the government." U.S. military statements also have referred to insurgents as "anti-Iraqi forces."

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines an insurgent as "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government."

Islamo-fascists has a nice ring to it, don't you think? That seems to be the right wing's current favorite.

Editorial gets immediate results

Who says newspaper editorials don't have any impact?

Nov. 29 Capital Times editorial:

Now that Dane County Board Chairman Kevin Kesterson has been convicted of lying to a sheriff's deputy investigating political wrongdoing at the county level, he should have the decency to resign.

And a Nov. 29 Capital Times news story:

Embattled Dane County Board Chairman Kevin Kesterson has resigned as both chairman and supervisor, ending his 10-month ordeal stemming from charges that he lied to a police officer about his knowledge of an e-mail smear made by a former supervisor against Supervisor Don Eggert.

Doyle numbers constant in SurveyUSA

Another poll from Survey USA, with Jim Doyle at 45-49 positive-negative. They've been polling every month since May, and the trend graph will show it is virtually unchanged from where Doyle was six months ago.

His net is minus 4, but in the Things Could Be Worse Dept., Ohio Gov. Bob Taft is at -58, Alaska's Frank Murkowski at -42, Kentucky's Ernie Fletcher at -31, Louisiana's Kathleen Blanco at -29, and California's Arnold Schwarzengger and Missouri's Matt Blunt both at -28. And that's without the wind chill factor. Of the five worst, all but Blanco are Republicans. Complete list.

--Mike Keefe, Denver Post, via Cagle.

Do me a favor

After reading the last several days of Wisconsin blogs, I have but one request:

If I ever start blogging about blogging, just shoot me.

Walker still whining

Scott Walker still can't believe that he put out a press release and nobody printed it. He's found a sympathetic ear in Owen at Boots and Sabers. But he'll get no sympathy here, for reasons I have explained previously.

What's his complaint, anyway? He got his name in the paper today.

But as Sykes, McBride, and Wagner like to ask on a daily basis: "Would you like a little cheese with that whine, Mr. Walker?"

Iraq vote 'more than a mistake'

A line is forming outside the Iraq confessional. It consists of Democratic presidential aspirants -- where's Hillary? -- who voted for the war in Iraq and now concede that they made a "mistake." Former senator John Edwards did that Nov. 13 in a Post op-ed article, and Sen. Joseph Biden uttered the "M" word Sunday on "Meet the Press." "It was a mistake," said Biden. "It was a mistake," wrote Edwards. Yes and yes, says Cohen. But it is also a mistake to call it a mistake.

-- Richard Cohen in a Washington Post op ed column.

Mistaken recall report still echoes

Madison radio station WIBA tries to clean up the mess after the Associated Press incorrectly reported that Citizens for Responsible Government was planning to try to recall Gov. Jim Doyle. WIBA's story:

Despite what you may have heard or read in a Milwaukee newspaper... Citizens for Responsible Government is NOT trying to recall Governor Doyle:
-------------------------
Sound bite: "categorically false..."
-------------------------
Chris Kliesmet of CRG... who blames the confusion on a headline writer at the Milwaukee newspaper. But Kleismet says they WILL launch a grass roots effort to make sure Doyle is not re-elected next year:
-------------------------
Sound bite: "...will go through regular election process, but not a recall effort."
-------------------------
Kleismet says Doyle has not been fiscally responsible. Citizens for Responsible Government is the same group that's trying to recall Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz.
-------------

A second version:

It was somewhat of a surprise this morning when word went out that the group now involved in trying to recall Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz now wants to recall Governor Doyle.. with less than a year before the next gubenatorial election. That word also came as a surprise to Chris Kleismet.. spokesperson for that recall group .... Citizens for Responsible Government:
-------------------------
Sound bite
-------------------------
Kleismet says his group would like to see Doyle out of the governor's mansion but they will try to unseat him next year through the election process... not through a recall.

And a third:

"Absolutely false"... that's the latest word from Citizens for Responsible Government on news this morning the group is launching a recall effort agaist Governor Doyle. Chris Kleismet... spokesperson for the group... says the confusion came from what he calls a misleading headline this morning in the Milwaukee newspaper. Kleismet does say his group will try to unseat Governor Doyle next year but through the election priocess:
-------------------------
Sound bite "... not fiscally responsible"
-------------------------
Citizens for Responsible Government is the same group that IS trying to recall Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz.
---------------

The headline writer gets the blame, but don't you think the person on the desk at AP, who wrote the wire version, should have read the story and not just the headline?

The result is certainly more exposure than CRG might have gotten if the story hadn't gotten garbled. But will the extra coverage help the group build its membership or make it seem like they're a little confused?

Latest death penalty bill is grotesque, gruesome grandstanding

Leave it to State. Sen. Tom Reynolds, R-Pluto, to come up with a death penalty bill that most death penalty advocates probably won't even support.

He's looking for sponsors for a bill to reinstate the death penalty in Wisconsin for committing all of the following three offenses against the same victim: 1) first or second-degree sexual assault; 2) first-degree homicide; and 3) disfigurement, dismemberment, or mutilation.

It is tailored, of course, to fit the Steven Avery case. It probably won't be called "Steven's Law," though. Sponsors always like to name these things for the victim, so it probably would be known as "Teresa's Law," for Teresa Halback.

But it will not be anybody's law. I don't believe this grotesque, gruesome grandstanding will even pass in this legislature, where the wingnuts rule the day.

But you never know.

The chief argument for the death penalty is that it will deter others from committing similar crimes, once they have witnessed other criminals being drawn and quartered. This may well be apocryphal, but it is said that in Olde England, in the days when pickpockets were hanged, that more pockets were picked at hangings than at any other time. It's a good story, anyway.

But let's consider the deterrence of the Reynolds bill. Since a criminal has to commit three heinous crimes on the same victim, maybe it would make some of them only commit two out of three.

Murder and dismemberment would be OK, as long as there was no sexual assault.

Sexual assault and dismemberment also would fall short of the death penalty, so long as the dismemberment didn't cause death.

A rapist and murderer would escape the noose/ax/injection/burning, too, if he stopped sort of dismemberment and "only" raped and killed the victim.

So, in a modest way, perhaps there would be some deterrence. Not that many people hack up their victims anyway, but maybe this would deter a few. Highly doubtful, though, wouldn't you say?

Is this subject in bad taste?

Is it my post or Reynolds's bill that makes you queasy?

It should be unsettling. There is a very good reason Wisconsin has outlawed the death penalty since 1853, as Badger Blues reminds us.

Reynolds, of course, is not the first politician to pander on the issue. Jeff Wagner, now a Republican radio host, used -- and I mean used -- the distraught father of a young girl who had been murdered, featuring him in a television commercial to attack Jim Doyle. Doyle, the attorney general, courageously opposed the death penalty in the 1994 race when Wagner, his challenger, used it against him. Doyle won, as you may recall.

Opponents of the death penalty argue, among other things, that we are certain to execute some innocent people.

No matter, says a noted conservative, Catholic, "pro-life" member of the intelligentsia:

John McAdams, a Marquette University political science professor, said death penalty opponents have inflated the number of death row inmates who are exonerated and have understated the level of public support for it.

"The mass public isn't particularly deterred by the notion there may be some innocent people on death row," said McAdams, a proponent of capital punishment. "No public policy works perfectly . . . so they're realistic about policy."

So the state murders a few innocent people. Hey, nothing's perfect. Win a few, lose a few.

I've heard McAdams' philosophy expressed by grunts in Vietnam: "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out."

The difference was, the grunts weren't serious.

Letter to Stars and Stripes

Is this letter written by an unpatriotic coward who wants to undermine the morale of the troops? It's from Stars and Stripes, the newspaper serving our military men and women overseas.

War based on a lie

Weapons of mass destruction? I’m still looking for them, and if you find any give me a call so we can justify our presence in Iraq. We started the war based on a lie, and we’ll finish it based on a lie. I say this because I am currently serving with a logistics headquarters in the Anbar province, between the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. I am not fooled by the constant fabrication of “democracy” and “freedom” touted by our leadership at home and overseas.

This deception is furthered by our armed forces’ belief that we can just enter ancient Mesopotamia and tell the locals about the benefits of a legislative assembly. While our European ancestors were hanging from trees, these ancient people were writing algebra and solving quadratic equations. Now we feel compelled to strong-arm them into accepting the spoils of capitalism and “laissez-faire” society. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy watching Britney Spears on MTV and driving to McDonald’s, but do you honestly believe that Sunnis, Shias and Kurds want our Western ideas of entertainment and freedom imposed on them? Think again.

I’m not being negative, I’m being realistic. The reality in Iraq is that the United States created a nightmare situation where one didn’t exist. Yes, Saddam Hussein was an evil man who lied, cheated and pillaged his own nation. But how was he different from dictators in Africa who commit massive crimes again humanity with little repercussion and sometimes support from the West? The bottom line up front (BLUF to use a military acronym) is that Saddam was different because we used him as an excuse to go to war to make Americans “feel good” about the “War on Terrorism.” The BLUF is that our ultimate goal in 2003 was the security of Israel and the lucrative oil fields in northern and southern Iraq.

Weapons of mass destruction? Call me when you find them. In the meantime, “bring ’em on” so we can get our “mission accomplished” and get out of this mess.

Capt. Jeff Pirozzi
Camp Taqaddum, Iraq

Democracy Campaign's new math

Love the way the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign rolled everyone together in its news release:

Madison - The three Republican and Democratic candidates for governor next year have accepted nearly $23,000 since 2003 from Illinois contributors who have been convicted or indicted of extortion, fraud, bribery or other crimes, or who are connected to state and federal criminal investigations, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign has found.

If you bother to read it and do a little math, even on your fingers, you'll find Jim Doyle's share is $6,500 while Walker and Green have more than $24,000 between them, counting contributions from wives which are also listed. Of that, about $14,000 went to Green and $10,000 to Walker. Of course, that doesn't count other money Nick Hurtgen and friends raised for Walker, which totaled at least $25,000.

Nowhere does WDC offer those totals or breakdown, just the $23,000 total.

The Journal Sentinel story at least split them up, but didn't count the wives and came up with its own totals. It also pointed out that Green has taken nearly $30,000 in political action money from Rep. Tom DeLay, who is under indictment on money laundering charges, as we have reported here several dozen times. Green continues to minimize that money, claiming that only $2,000 of it was transferred into his governor's campaign account. But he should be held accountable for disposing of the total amount, as several other Republican House members have done. There are any number of ways to do it, and it will continue to be an issue in the 2006 campaign unless he does.

--Mike Lester, Rome, GA News-Tribune, via Cagle.

Vets board delays coronation of Scocos

The state Board of Veterans Affairs decided today that it was not urgent to change its rules and effectively make John Scocos Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Life.

Gary Fisher attended the board's teleconference meeting and reports:

Seeing any real or perceived support for sweeping rule changes vanish into the ether during a telephone conference Monday, the Veterans Affairs Board agreed to consider further comments before voting in December on the proposed changes to board rules.

Most controversial is the proposal giving the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs secretary unprecedented power by requiring a unanimous vote of seven board members to remove the secretary from office for mismanagement or misconduct.

Now it requires four votes of the board to appoint the secretary and five votes for removal.

Board members Peter Moran and Marv Freedman cautioned for more input before any action is taken.

"We should take no action binding on future boards," said Moran.

Department lawyer John Rosinski opined, and board Chair Ken Wendt agreed, that the process legally allowed a vote on the changes at the teleconference, and (Wendt)
saw "no reason to postpone a vote."

Freedman said he wasn't raising the legality of today's notice but "the appropriateness of (voting)now instead of at December meeting." Reiterating his request for a delay, Freedman told Wendt "it's the principle I just mentioned. The board teleconferences only on matters that are time sensitive."

Board member Kathy Marschman said she was "willing to delay the proposal on the number of votes to remove the secretary after discussing it with "other folks."

Marschman, who initially proposed the rules changes out of thin air, said the "proposals are board matters and I'm curious why it has generated an attack on Secretary Scocos. "I hope the board works through this and recognizes that it's board business, not about him."

Marschman said it is "troubling that a newspaper the quality of the Journal Sentinel" how it portrayed board members" and weblogs comments directed at the secretary that people will "wonder what's going on." [Can't speak for the JS, but that's exactly what comments on this blog were intended to do. -- Xoff.]

Board members Don Heiliger and Walt Stenavich also agreed to revisit the proposed changes before the Dec. 9 board meeting in Union Grove.

"I'd like to see (the existing) document with Marv's (and Moran's) comments added side by side," said Heiliger.

County Veterans Services Officrs President Rick Gates, Dane County CVSO officer Michael Jackson and Marathon County CVSO officer Scott Berger attended today's meeting to urge the board to delay its action.

"It is bad public policy to make the secretary for life," said Berger. I see no reason."

In opposing a unanimous vote to remove the secretary for cause, Jackson said he's also adamantly against the board paying legal fees for a secretary accused of wrongdoing.

State Sen. Dan Kapanke, R-La Crosse, staffer and junior vice commander of the Wisconsin Military Order of the Purple Heart, John O'Brien, who opposes former State Sen. Rod Moen's confirmation to the board, was an observer at the meeting. Moen has been nominated by the governor to replace Marschman, whose term expired May 1, but she has refused to step down and the Republican-run State Senate has not confirmed Moen yet.

Wisconsin Veterans Museum director Richard Zeitlin said said he'd been with the agency since John Moses was secretary several years ago.

"The Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs' mission is to help veterans and their families, said Zeitlin.

"There's not much mentioned about achievements today," he said. "Through the achievements of this legislature (and governor) the WDVA has received solid gains."

The G.I. Bill (tuition breaks for vets returning from the Middle East) is a progressive step forward . . . I haven't heard anyone say how these proposed rule changes would benefit the veterans of Wisconsin."

Bill Kloster, the deputy secretary of Veterans Affairs, said he'd get the current proposal in the mail Tuesday, which is 10 days before the December meeting, and then forward electronic copies of today's comments from Freedman, Moran and other board members to the board in a few days.

Don't expect to receive an electronic copy if you request one, however, because Rosinski states, "hard copies of the requested documents will be sent to you as soon as they are finalized. Electronic copies of documents are not provided because of the capability of altering those documents after they are provided to the recipient."

CRG recalling Doyle? Not exactly

Understandably, there was some confusion today over just what Citizens for a Republican Governor (former Citizens for Responsible Government) were announcing in a top line Journal Sentinel story.

The headline said: Recall group aims to grow, take on Doyle

Nowhere in the story does it say CRG wants to recall Doyle. But it doesn't say much of anything about its plans for Doyle, except the headline, where putting "recall" and "Doyle" in such close proximity may have made it seem that way.

That was enough to confuse the Associated Press, which sent this story on its radio wire:

UNDATED (AP) - A conservative group that claims credit for forcing a number of county executives across Wisconsin to step down, is hoping to parlay their success into a recall effort of Governor Doyle.

The conservative group is called Citizens for Responsible Government. It's forced Pewaukee Mayor Jeff Nowak to step down, and it's been trying to get Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz (shihz-LEH-vich) to do the same.

Now C-R-G is hoping to extend its pitch for fiscally conservative policies by organizing a recall of Governor Doyle.

The group is facing an uphill battle. The group expects it will need a least a (m) million dollars to organize a recall effort, but it has less than five-thousand dollars right now.

C-R-G executive member Orville Seymer says he's frustrated that there has been little action on a proposal to limit state and local tax revenue.

A later AP story didn't mention the recall:

Populist group hopes to build statewide base

MILWAUKEE (AP) -- Citizens for Responsible Government, a populist group that has been involved in a number of local campaigns during the last few years, plans to begin a large-scale membership and affiliate drive after the holiday season, its executive administrator says.

Chris Kliesmet told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the CRG network aims to have "boots on the ground" in all 72 of Wisconsin's counties and raise a war chest of $1 million from a membership base of 10,000 people.

"We've had so much focus on issues locally," he said. "At some point in time, you have to make a strategic decision to stop fighting brush fires and look to build a dam upstream."

He said the organization now has a couple thousand people as members, but there is no dues-paying process and no statewide database of CRG supporters. The Journal Sentinel said the most recent campaign finance reports show the network has $4,863 in its bank account.

et cetera

Walker backer sees Doyle conspiracy

Turncoat Barbara Boxer, who says she's a Democrat but is raising money for Scott Walker for governor, tries to make the case that some kind of Jim Doyle conspiracy is behind Kathleen Falk's candidacy for attorney general.

Too complicated for simple minds like mine, but Boxer -- who supported Tom Barrett for governor and savaged Doyle on Charlie Sykes' TV show every Sunday during the last campaign -- says "Doyle advisers" have told her they think Mark Green is easier to beat than Walker.

I'm no longer a Doyle adviser, but every Democratic and Doyle strategist I know is pulling for Walker to win the primary.

Here's Boxer's WisPolitics column, in which the biographical note describes her as a longtime Dem and forgets to mention that she supports Walker.

Walker whines about news coverage,but has been treated well by media

Scott Walker, unhappy with the Journal Sentinel, takes a page out of Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke's playbook and e-mails Republican radio host Charlie Sykes:

Charlie,

What's up with the newspaper? Apparently they couldn't find enough room to put in a story about a major plan to stop the automatic increase in the gas tax each April, but they could find room to run a story about two people from Wisconsin escorting Mr. Potato Head in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. Now, I think that's kind of cool, but doesn't a major newspaper have some sort of a responsibility to cover an announcement about a major change in the gas tax?

Other places covered the story. Wispolitics.com had this on the website. The transportation lobby put out this release in opposition to repealing the gas tax indexing.

Does anyone think that there is any bias in the media?

- Scott

Yes, Scooter, everyone thinks there is bias in the media. And everyone thinks it is against them.

Maybe you've been spoiled, and never had a news conference where no one showed up, or never issued a news release that someone didn't write about.

I doubt that's the case. Many of your campaign news releases never see the light of day, except on political websites or blogs.

You probably thought this one, calling for an end to the automatic increase in the state gas tax, was a sure-fire gimmick to get a story.

For some reason, the newspaper decided not to write about it. Maybe it's because a number of state legislators already have made the same proposal, and that has been covered. Or maybe it just didn't seem like a big deal. I don't know the paper's rationale, and I am certainly not going to be the paper's apologist.

My point isn't that they were right or wrong in deciding not to cover the story.

It's that candidates for office have that same experience on a daily basis. Most of them don't whine about it; they just move on and try something else the next day.

In my years in politics, I've had more than a little frustration about a campaign's inability to get stories covered. I feel your pain.

In 2004, my candidate (your opponent) for county executive, David Riemer, couldn't get newspaper coverage if he set his hair on fire in the middle of the newsroom. The editors had decided that race wasn't worth covering -- and as the incumbent you benefited greatly from that decision. The newspaper even sat on the story about your own pension scandal -- your failure to keep your promise and get your appointees to sign waivers -- until well after the election.

In the last governor's race, all of the three Democrats running in the primary had to fight for every scrap of coverage they got, while the incumbent, Scott McCallum, made news every time he opened his mouth.

You are just a candidate for the GOP nomination, running in a primary in hopes of becoming the nominee. What you're experiencing may be frustrating, but it's hardly unusual.

And it is hardly evidence of bias. The newspaper mistreats all candidates, not just you.

If I had a dollar for every time a campaign I worked on was unhappy about the way the media ignored a press release, I could retire from running candidate campaigns. (Oh, that's right; I have, and without the dollars, too.)

Finally, you probably should be thankful you didn't get coverage on your proposal to get rid of gas tax indexing, since the story may also have pointed out that it was a flip-flop for you on the issue. When you had a chance in the legislature to vote to end indexing, you voted the other way. But that wasn't in the press release, so I covered it for you.

So, Scooter, some final free advice: Take your lumps on coverage. And when you think you have a legitimate gripe, take it up directly with the media outlet, not your Republican talkers and bloggers. In the long run, that'll pay more dividends.

Nobody likes a whiner.

UPDATE: Dennis York gives the idea full and hilarious coverage in his post, Gas tax fever as told by Larry King.

Madison ain't Pewaukee, ain'a?

Let's file this one away under "Suspicions confirmed." Madison's Mayor Dave does not appear to be in any danger of being recalled, even if his foes manage to collect enough signatures, which seems unlikely, judging from this story.

Madison is not going to throw out a popular mayor over a smoking ban, which most Madisonians probably support. The Citizens for Responsible Government and its recall-crazy friends will find that Madison ain't Pewaukee.

Now comes the report this morning that CRG is coming out of the non-partisan, concerned citizen closet, with the ambitious goal of becoming a statewide organization with 10,000 members and a million-dollar bankroll to beat Gov. Jim Doyle next year. Why not just call it Citizens for a Republican Governor and quit pretending?

The million dollars will be easier to find than the 10,000 members, although the Journal Sentinel is doing its part with a top-line story that promotes CRG's wish list -- and that's all it is, at this point. Republicans who want someone else to do their dirty work will write checks to CRG, depending upon its legal status. But the group is entering a brand new arena now, where the rules are different and the scrutiny is more intense.

This will test whether CRG is ready for prime time on the big stage. The group's credibility is on the line. They may wish they were back recalling aldermen in Gopher Junction before this is over.

Mexican-made threads pose threat to border!

Brace yourself. Shocking news!

Uniforms worn by U.S. Border Patrol along the Mexican border are -- gasp! -- made in Mexico!!!

Not to worry. Corrective action is in the works. Let's just hope this bill passes before swarms of illegal immigrants march across the border in formation, disguised as Border Patrol troops.

Anyone down there ever heard of NAFTA?

Newcomer really is a newcomer

Learn something every day -- and count the day lost that you don't catch hell for something.

I guess I might have known this if I really thought about it, since many Wisconsin members of Congress have claimed voting addresses in Wisconsin although living permanently in the DC area. (Not to mention Speaker John Gard, claiming to live in Peshtigo while living in Sun Prairie and sending his kids to school there.)

But I admit to a little surprise upon hearing that you can claim voting residency at an address where a house is still being built, and which you may not occupy for almost a year.

That's the ruling from George Dunst, legal counsel to the State Elections Board, in the case of the appropriately named candidate, Scott Newcomer.

Widgerson Library and Pub has a report on it, and Badger Blogger, which first questioned Newcomer's residency, has more, including a link to the Dunst letter, which explains that where you sleep is not necessarily your place of residence.

The Biden, er, Bush secret plan to end the war

I am not making this up. The White House is claiming that its secret plan to end the war in Iraq, which it had just not gotten around to sharing with us yet, is pretty much the plan Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, proposed in an op ed on Saturday.

Guess they shouldn't have left that memo lying around, knowing Biden has a history of giving other people's speeches.

Here's the latest lunacy from Scott McClellan, a totally unreliable source.

Bush prepares cut and run plan

Coming soon, the LA Times reports, the Bush secret plan to end the war:

U.S. Starts Laying Groundwork for Significant Troop Pullout From Iraq

By Paul Richter and Tyler Marshall, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Even as debate over the Iraq war continues to rage, signs are emerging of a convergence of opinion on how the Bush administration might begin to exit the conflict.

In a departure from previous statements, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week that the training of Iraqi soldiers had advanced so far that the current number of U.S. troops in the country probably would not be needed much longer.

President Bush will give a major speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.

The administration's pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort.

"Pivot" is a very kind word to describe what Bush appears poised to do -- move in the direction advocated by people his administration has called cowards and traitors.

Unanswered questions

A few pertinent questions on the Abramoff case, asked of Wisconsin Republicans by Eye On Wisconsin, who says he doesn't really expect any answers.

That's OK. The questions alone speak volumes.

'Jefferson council crosses the line'in its rush to welcome Wal-Mart

An op ed column by a public interest lawyer Brent Denzin explores what's happening with Jefferson Wal-Mart and questions why city government is unwilling to collect more information before welcoming a superstore, and has rejected a petition for direct legislation:

In the rush to flood the city with below-poverty level jobs, the council has forgotten that its authority has limits. Whether citizens believe that Wal-Marts will save or destroy their community, their right to directly participate in government does not end on election day...

While the whole process has been dirty, at best, the latest decision in Jefferson crosses the line. The council's recent actions should not be considered yet another issue in a deep debate about our changing economic and environmental landscape. The reaction should be clear and definite: These actions are not only unwise, irresponsible and undemocratic; they are illegal and unacceptable.

Unspoken is the question of whether this issue is headed to court.

Biden gets the message

I've been among those saying for awhile now that any Democrat who has presidential aspirations in 2008 needs to establish his/her bona fides on the Iraq war. I can't imagine that the party will turn to someone who continues to support the Bush administration's failed policies, even under cover of "supporting the troops."

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., has been one of those on the list of presidential hopefuls who has continued to support the war.

No more. In a Washington Post op ed column today, he calls for a timetable for withdrawal.

Can Hillary be far behind?

Biden's change of heart is discussed at TPM Cafe

No-bid contract still a non-story

Eye On Wisconsin continues to needle the Journal Sentinel over its lack of interest in writing about questionable contracts awarded by Milwaukee County to a low-ranked firm whose execs are donors to County Exec Scott Walker.

The facts and circumstances, he says, are worse than those in the award of a state contract to Adelman Travel, to which the JS has devoted barrels of ink and some top-line headlines. The county even gave a $250,000 no-bid contract to the firm. (That's as big as the Adelman contract and there were no bids at all.)

It is worth the effort to try to shame them into some coverage. But I fear the Eye will find that to really get the newspaper's attention you need more than a blog. You need a radio station.

Quote, unquote

“Felons lack the qualification to vote only because we say they do. Just like we say you have to be 18 to vote or you have to vote in your district. So it is simply a matter of policy."

--Kevin Kennedy, executive director of the State Elections Board, who recommends letting felons vote. State Rep. Joe Parisi, D-Madison, is preparing a bill to do that. I agree.

Move over Murtha, make room for another defense hawk

The effects of last week's rancorous House debate over Iraq continue to be felt.

The Seattle Times reports that Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., a staunch supporter of the military and of the decision to go to war in Iraq, now says it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.

It sounds as though the Republicans made another major mistake when they began the name-calling and vilified Democrats who questioned the war. That mistake helped Dicks to make a decision, and he won't be the last. The story's well worth a read.

-- Chan Lowe, South Florida Sun Sentinel, via Cagle.

Racine emperor backs off

Racine County Exec William McReynolds has "clarified" and "reaffirmed" his policies about giving county supervisors access to county staff, he says.

But it sounds a lot more like he backed down from am irrational and indefensible position that prevented one supervisor from getting information from staffers unless she went to McReynolds first.

Earlier post: Racine exec thinks he's the emperor.

He may be a little more sensitive and responsive to criticism these days because he has announced as a candidate for the State Senate in 2006, and looking like a cranky crackpot won't help.

Quote, unquote

"Dissent equals treason. Anyone who criticizes Bush is unpatriotic. According to this pitiful attempt at intimidation, to notice that this war is a disaster is the same as spitting on our soldiers."

-- Molly Ivins, in a column, "Bush's Spin Machine," on AlterNet.

Random notes . . .

DIALING IT DOWN. I see Gov. Doyle has ordered the thermostats turned down in state buildings to save money -- from 72 degrees down to 68. Our themostat hasn't been at 72 since the energy crisis of 1973.

ILLEGAL WEB SITES. The last few days I have been bombarded with spam, some from what purports to be the CIA and others from the FBI. They tell me my IP-address has showed up on on more than 30 "illegal websites," and invite me to open some attached questions, which of course I've never done. But I do have this nagging doubt -- what if, under the Patriot Act, the government is monitoring my computer? Some illegal websites I visit could be The Progressive, Yellow Dog Blog, BuzzFlash, Lefty Blogs, AlterNet, Mother Jones, Antiwar.com, and The Nation, just for starters. Pretty sure I could get to 30 without much effort. I only wish The Xoff Files could be illegal; think of what it would do for traffic.

BAD EXAMPLE. Does anyone else find it ironic that the Steven Avery case is being used as the reason to introduce another death penalty bill? Avery, whether guilty or not of the current charge against him, was wrongly convicted for an earlier crime and spent 18 years in prison. If it had been a capital offense, he would have been put to death for a crime he didn't commit. It's true that if we had wrongly executed Avery he would not ave been able to commit another crime, but that doesn't seem like the best argument for the death penalty.

PUTTING THE X BACK IN XMAS. Several right-wing bloggers in the Milwaukee area have their undies bundled over radio station WRIT's play list for holiday music (I didn't say Christmas just to prove to them I really am the heathen they think I am.) The 24/7 Christmas music doesn't include enough religious songs, they say. Excuse me, but isn't that up to the station under this free enterprise system the conservatives champion? If people don't like their selections, they can listen to another station. It's The American Way. (Anyone for starting a petition to get Republican radio WTMJ to go all-religious music all year-round? It would be a vast improvement.)

--Etta Hulme, Fort Worth Star Telegram

--Jim Day, Las Vegas Review Journal, via Cagle. (Click on cartoon to enlarge)

Schmidt: What didn't she know and when?

Rep. Jean Schmidt, who called colleague John Murtha a coward on the House floor last week, said she was delilvering a messahe from a Marine colonel. Now that colonel says he never mentioned Murtha and would never call a fellow Marine a coward.

Yellow Dog Blog has more.

Schmidt also says she didn't know Murtha was a Marine.

Pathetic. What else didn't she know, and when didn't she know it?

How many rode the Abramoff gravy train?

Mark Graul, Rep. Mark Green's campaign manager and ex-chief of staff on the Hill, gets another mention today by Josh Marshall on Talking Points Memo:

Here's one thing I'm interested in. A couple days ago, the Washington Post quoted sources close to the Abramoff investigation saying that investigators are "are looking at half a dozen members of Congress, current and former senior Hill aides, a former deputy secretary of the interior, and Abramoff's former lobbying colleagues."

Now, six members of Congress -- not so many when you consider there are more than 500 hundred of them. But note the standard. Presumably, these are the ones FBI agents and federal prosecutors are looking to possibly charge with criminal offenses and send to prison.

Given how common a practice it is for big contributions to secure votes on key legislation in today's Washington (and yesterday's Washington too, for that matter), you've really got to cross the line in a big way to get into legal trouble for taking bribes, as already seems to have happened with Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH). The DOJ doesn't enforce House ethics rules (then again, nobody does anymore. but that's another story). Nor are there laws against general sleazeballery.

So how big a swath will the Abramoff scandal cut in the House? Six under scrutiny for actual charges? Figure there are ten times that many tarred with his brush, revealed to be deep in his web of corruption, on the freebie gravy train, even if they violated no specific laws which could land them in jail. How does the Abramoff scandal play in their districts?

Last month we did a few posts about a guy named Mark Graul, one-time Chief of Staff for Rep. Mark Green (R) of Wisconsin and now his campaign manager as Green runs for Governor. We noted that Graul's name shows up again and again getting tickets to various Abramoff skyboxes back in 2000. (These are from a collection of Team Abramoff emails we received a few months back.)

Graul first denied getting any freebies. But as we published more and more of the emails and the local press started taking notice, he eventually sorta kinda 'fessed up. And he came up with a new line which was basically, tough luck, that's how business is done in Washington.

When asked about the Abramoff freebies, Graul told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "I believe it's illegal in [the Wisconsin state capital of] Madison. It's legal in Washington."

So how many other members of Congress up for election next year were on the Abramoff gravy train?

Lawmakers begin to wake up, speak up on Veterans Affairs power grab

The attempt to change the rules at the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, in effect making John Scocos DVA Secretary for Life, is beginning to attract the attention of state legislators.

Like the rest of us, they have trouble understanding why Scocos should get special treatment. The DVA board is considering a rule change that, if passed, would require a unanimous 7-0 vote to remove him from the job. No other cabinet secretary has ever had that kind of job security.

What's behind it is a partisan effort by Republican appointees, who still control the board, to insulate Scocos before Democratic appointees have the majority. But there is no indication that the governor or his appointees have any desire to get rid of Scocos. It looks a lot like rampant paranoia.

State Rep. Dave Travis, D-Madison, who publicly endorsed Scocos' appointment, says he would do so again. But he called for the board to "back off" its attempts to give Scocos lifetime tenure.

"I believe he has done many good things on behalf of Wisconsin veterans, and respect his service to our country. Despite my support for Secretary Scocos, I am deeply deeply offended by the actions of the Board of Veterans Affairs which I believe is legally questionable on several levels-and certainly ethically questionable," Travis said.

There are no Republicans or Democrats on the battlefield-only Americans.

It is shameful that certain members of the Veterans' Board and State Senate want to make veterans' issues partisan.

I suggest people back off and return to our usual nonpartisan approach to veterans issues.

If people insist on going forth with activities that are illegal or questionable, I have no other choice than to ask for legal investigations, but I hope folks take a few deep breaths and decide to keep politics away from our service people.

State Rep. Bob Turner, D-Racine, a Vietnam vet:

I do not believe that the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs is meant to be a lifetime political appointee. There are protections built into the system, and these protections are consistent with our representative form of government. Allowing a life term for any appointee is tantamount to totalitarianism. I would hope that the members of the Board will understand this and vote accordingly.

State Sen. Robert Wirch, D-Pleasant Prairie, member of the Senate Committee on Veterans, Homeland Security, and Military Affairs, Small Business and Government Reform, (and the Kitchen Sink) calls the board's latest ploy an unabashed "power grab."

Some county veterans service officers also have spoken up in opposition.

No Republican leggies are willing to talk publicly about it, apparently because Speaker John Gard is pulling the strings on this one and is likely to rip out the tongue of anyone who disagrees.
The board will hold a teleconference on the proposed changes at 10 a.m. on Monday, Nov. 28, on the 8th floor of the WDVA headquarters at 30 W. Mifflin St., Madison. It is a public meeting. The board could act that day or defer action to its December meeting. There has been no public hearing. Earlier post.

Paging U.S. Attorney, news media, Republican Party and all ships at sea

Eye on Wisconsin is just wondering where the concern is about some questionable county contracts he revealed earlier this week:

Paging U.S. Attorney Steven M. Biskupic

You are investigating allegations regarding the awarding of a state contract to Adelman Travel. The amount of that contract was $250,000 and Adelman won the bid. The Scott Walker/Milwaukee County contract with Phoenix Care Systems was for over $1.2 million and that company did not even score very high.

Not to mention that they also received a no-bid contract from MilwaukeeCounty during the same year. Now I’m sure the fact that the executives of that company gave money to Scott Walker is just a coincidence, but we really should err on the side of caution. Don’t you agree? Please email me when you have the press conference scheduled.

Read it all.

Walker, Green begin to mix it up; Walker's record on gas tax a problem

Are the Republican candidates for governor finally going to start to mix it up a little and begin to talk about their differences? Is Scott Walker really more against taxes than Mark Green? Green says otherwise.

Walker fired the first shot across Green's bow, over gas taxes.

Here's how Republican radio's Charlie Sykes describes it. I've highlighted some parts that deserve special attention:

Scott Walker turns up the pressure on his fellow GOPers. Here is his plan:

*Stop the automatic gas tax increase. This would save $38.6 million in the current budget.

*Protect the Transportation Fund from being raided (like Doyle did in the past two budgets - he took $486 million in 2005/2007 budget)

*Allow the sales tax collected from vehicle-related purchases (currently used in the general fund) to be put in to the Transportation Fund

*Work to end EPA regulations for Reformulated Gas

Walker provides this background:

Background: In 1995, former Governor Tommy Thompson proposed a 3.5% "oil franchise fee" - an indirect gas tax that would raise gas prices about 3.85 cents per gallon. The plan also would tie the state gas tax solely to the national inflation rate. And finally, it would have allowed Milwaukee County to impose a 2-cent-per-gallon gas tax dedicated to the transit system.

At the time, 10 of us in the Assembly stood up against the plan and stopped it - twice. We took the heat on taxes - not from Democrats, but from Republicans in the leadership like Speaker David Prosser, Caucus Chair Mark Green and Rep. John Gard. Still, we blocked the major tax increase.

Most of the 10 were from southeastern Wisconsin. Our constituents were smarting (and still are today) over reformulated gas and how much it was driving up the cost of a gallon of gas.

Now, the next step is to stop the annual increase in the gas tax - without a vote.

Where else do we give an increase without justification for the use of those tax dollars? As Conservatives, this should be a litmus test. Not just because it is the gas tax, but because it is taxation without representation. Forcing a vote forced government to justify the use of those tax dollars.

This puts pressure on Mark Green. He is closely aligned with Speaker John Gard, who hasn't shown much enthusiasm for ending the automatic gas tax increase. But they can't afford not to get on this bus.

Just one problem for Walker: If the automatic gas tax issue is the litmus test, Walker flunks.

He had a chance when he was in the legislature in 1999 to vote for a proposal to end the automatic increases.

What did Walker do? He voted no.

Walker also voted once, during his time in the legislature, to increase the gas tax in addition to the automatic increase.

Meanwhile, Green's weekly newsletter takes out after Walker for opposing cuts in child support enforcement money, which will hurt Milwaukee County's efforts to collect child support. Green voted for those cuts as part of $50-billion in budget cuts that also slashed funding for Medicare, food stamps, and other programs that primarily help the poor. From Green's newsletter, headlined "Mark Takes on the Big Spenders:"

Even Mark’s GOP primary opponent, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, got into the act calling for more spending. Here’s an excerpt from this Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story:

Walker, a Republican, finds himself arguing the same points as the advocates and the administration of Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, whom Walker hopes to run against next year. The issue also pits Walker against fellow Republicans in Congress, who support the trim as part of a much larger budget-cutting package.

OK, so it's not exactly a slugfest yet. But it's the early rounds, and as the fight announcers always say, Green and Walker are feeling each other out. Sooner or later, they'll start to throw some real punches.

Unless Green counter-punches on the gas tax issue, Walker wins the first round on points.

Waukesha is a long ways from getting Lake Michigan water

Waukesha Freeman columnist Dennis Shook seems quite excited to report the news that a new Great Lakes water compact could allow Waukesha County to get water from Lake Michigan.

Shook sounds about ready to pop the bubbly and celebrate Waukesha's success.

But that would be more than a little premature. One of my Water Warrior buddies (in other words, someone, unlike me, who actually knows something about the issue) tells me that:

Waukesha, like dozens of communities near the Great Lakes basin boundaries, will be eligible to APPLY for a diversion, but it's premature to say they can or will be hooked up. There's an important difference between applying for a diversion, being approved, and turning on a spigot.

There are many unanswered questions about the whole process, assuming that the Governors agree on Dec. 13 to sign the document that is still being reviewed:

1. What is the format for an application? What does it have to include?

2. Are the legal and scientific mechanics in place to review it?

3. How much public input will there be?

4. Will a decision, either way, be appealable? If so, to whom?

5. Will a community be required to return diverted water to the source (in Waukesha's case, that community continues to balk, citing the expense)?

6. Will a community be allowed to blend diverted water with other water for the return if required (in Waukesha's case, that could include radium-tainted
water, which MMSD may not want or be able to handle, and which may harm Lake Michigan).

7. Will a community seeking a diversion be required to have, in place, a functioning water conservation plan - - achieving what results, and for how long?

And every diversion application for a city like Waukesha (in a so-called boundary straddling county, will be considered by all the states with its precedent-setting potential in mind. That means the decision is political, as well as legal and
scientific.

That is why all such applications will have to win unanimous approval from eight Governors. That means the bar continues to be very high, and why, since 1985,
applications have been few in number and even fewer have been approved.

And why conservation has to be the driving element, prior, during and after an application is forwarded, and also needs to be the driving element in all Great
Lakes communities, diversion application or not.

So, Waukeshans (Waukeshites?) (Waukeonians?), keep the cap on the champagne for now. "There's many a slip twixt cup and lip," as Ben Franklin would say.

Drink up, soldier! Under age? No problem

State Rep. Mark Pettis, R-Hertel, is hell-bent on letting members of the military drink in Wisconsin, even if they are under the legal drinking age of 21.

He had proposed a bill to let service members drink at age 19, but that would mean the loss of millions of dollars in federal highway aid, so the idea has been shelved.

But he's back with another, worse idea: Don't lower the drinking age, just make the fine so low no one will worry about getting caught. Any 19- or 20-year-old member of the military, and the bartender who served him/her, would pay only $10 in fines and penalties.

My recollection is that this started out with Pettis being concerned that veterans of the Iraq war were not old enough to drink legally when they came back.

Now we're down to allowing any member of the National Guard, Reserve or active duty forces drink if he/she is 19 or older.

That's something they can't do in their own enlisted clubs on the base where they're stationed in the US, but what the hell, we make beer in Wisconsin so let 'em all drink. It should be great for business in the taverns around Fort McCoy, and probably for the ambulance service and hospitals, too.

Makes me feel a little sorry for those 18-year-old soldiers, sailors, Air Force members and Marines, who will be left out. What's so magic about 19? For that matter, what makes a 19-year-old service member more able to drink responsibly than a 19-year-old civilian? (Oh, no one said anything about responsibility. OK.) When I was a Marine, none of the people I ran with should have been allowed to drink, no matter how old we were. But that's another story.

Tom Sheehan of the LaCrosse Tribune has details.

Lest you think this is much ado about a bill that's not going anywhere, it already has been recommended for passage by an Assembly committee on a 7-2 vote

Fixing the Patriot Act

Sen. Russ Feingold is trying, while Congress is in recess, to enlist support for the Senate's version of the Patriot Act, which modifies some of the most troubling provisions in the bill.

A conference committee was on the verge of rejecting those changes last week, but backed off on action before Congress recessed. Feingold said he was prepared, if necessary, to filibuster by reading the Bill of Rights and other relevant documents on the floor of the Senate.

But the bill is just on hold temporarily. It's important to keep the pressure on and let Congress know that we won't give the government a blank check to snoop into our private lives.

One way to help: Sign a petition.

Another traitorous call for timetable

Cowards! Traitors! Cut and run!

AP reports on this distressing development:

Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.

The communique - finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday - condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

The leaders agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks.

I forgot "ingrates, but Folkbum has it covered.

Another rationale for voter photo ID

One more example of the kind of thinking that lies behind efforts to disenfranchise minorities through photo ID requirements. This from the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Voter ID memo stirs tension
Sponsor of disputed Georgia legislation told feds that blacks in her district only vote if they are paid to do so.

The chief sponsor of Georgia's voter identification law told the Justice Department that if black people in her district "are not paid to vote, they don't go to the polls," and that if fewer blacks vote as a result of the new law, it is only because it would end such voting fraud.

The newly released Justice Department memo quoting state Rep. Sue Burmeister (R-Augusta) was prepared by department lawyers as the federal government considered whether to approve the new law. It also says that despite Republican assurances the law would not disenfranchise elderly, poor and black voters, Susan Laccetti Meyers, the staff adviser for the Georgia House of Representatives, told the Justice Department "the Legislature did not conduct any statistical analysis of the effect of the photo ID requirement on minority voters."

'Anti-gay stand will cost GOP long-term'

Some insights on the Republicans' gay-bashing from a new conservative blog, I Am The Force:

Most people in today's world have friends or family members who are gay. We should all be thankful to them for coming out of the closet and helping dispel ignorance and fear in the "straight" community. The Gundrum Republicans are wrong today because the gay couple down the street is no threat to you or your family. They are people, the same as you or I, who deserve to live their lives as they wish and be left alone to do so. The concept of toleration is even offensive and passe'. You shouldn't have to tolerate them, because there is nothing offensive to tolerate. Who they love and what they do in their sex lives is none of your business, and doesn't affect you and your family in any way. So there may be many people out there who still fear gays and lesbians, but that does not excuse a political party trying to exploit those fears for partisan political advantage. If you can't be okay with the private lives of others, well then, at minimum, just leave them alone. Is that too much to ask?

More and more regular people in Wisconsin and around the world are understanding this every day. And over time, the civil rights of homosexuals will become as solidly recognized as the civil rights of women and minorities. When George Wallace stood at that schoolhouse door to fight integration, he certainly experienced short term political gain from the white Jim Crow supporters of Alabama, but he was wrong nevertheless. And history will judge the Mark Gundrums of the world in the same manner. It is a shameful thing to condemn a sub-group of people in our society as second class citizens. The Republicans of Wisconsin are simply wrong on this issue, and they will eventually pay at the polls.

Read it all.

Green's 'family values' help right-wingagenda, but do little or nothing for families

Rep. Mark Green was touting his award from the Family Research Council the other day, saying he had won a "True Blue" award for "his strong defense of families and the sanctity of human life."

"Since coming to Congress, one of my highest priorities has been protecting the needs of families,"Green said. "The work we do in Washington can strengthen or weaken family bonds, and the "True Blue"Award is a reminder of just how significant an impact our votes in Congress have."

This year, Green was recognized "for demonstrating extraordinary integrity and character in his defense of families and the sanctity of human life through his votes in Congress."

"Stronger neighborhoods and communities start with stronger families, and that's why it's always important that we support public policy that protects the values of human life, religion and family institutions such as marriage," Green said.

What could be finer and more voter-friendly than a pro-family group?

Well, the Family Research Council cares about a lot more than families -- and only certain kinds of families need apply. Founded by James Dobson and headed for a time by Gary Bauer, its president is now Tony Perkins (not the actor who played a nutcase, but an actual nutcase). Right Wing Watch, at People for the American Way, explains:

Since the early 1990s, FRC has emerged as a leading conservative think-tank championing "traditional family values" by lobbying for state-sponsored prayer in public schools, private school vouchers, abstinence-only programs, filtering software on public library computers, the right to discriminate against gay men and lesbians.

FRC's objective is to establish a conservative Christian standard of morality in all of America's domestic and foreign policy.

FRC has dedicated itself to working against reproductive freedom, sex education, equal rights for gays and lesbians and their families, funding of the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. FRC supports a school prayer amendment and would like to "disestablish"the Department of Education.

The agenda doesn't stop there, either. To get a "True Blue" award, Green needed to vote with the council 100% of the time on "pro-family" issues that included:

--Allowing faith-based organizations to discriminate in hiring based on religion, a family value if I ever heard one.

-- Interfering in the Terri Schiavo case by passing a bill taking sides with her parents and against her husband, who was trying to carry out her wishes.

-- Cutting funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. (That reafamilieses a blow for famililes.)

-- Opposing an expansion of federal support for stem cell research, which holds out the potential to cure diseases that affect almost every American family.)

-- Supporting display of the 10 Commandments at an Indiana courthouse. (Makes my family more secure.)

-- Supporting a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag desecration, which threatens families all across the country.

-- Opposing the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain and prohibiting spending any money to enforce the court decision. (Ah, yes, protecting the sanctity of public property.)

-- Opposing an amendment to the Child Safety Act to create federal hate crimes for violent acts based on race, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. I'm not sure what the pro-family part of that vote would be, but Mark Green will no doubt be happy to explain during his campaign for governor. (Interestingly, last year he didn't even bother to respond to a questionnaire from the Wisconsin version of the organization.)

Two other Wisconsin Republicans, Paul Ryan and F. Jim Sensenbrenner, also were "True Blue" with 100% voting records, but only Green put out a news release. Tom Petri was 92% True Blue, not enough for an award. Among the Dems, Dave Obey scored 17%, while Tammy Baldwin, Gwen Moore and Ron Kind all got big fat zeroes.

Green, of course, voted last week for $50-billion in budget cuts that will harm many Wisconsin families by cutting student loans, food stamps, and child support enforcement funds, Medicaid, and other family-friendly programs -- programs that actually strengthen families and help them survive and improve their lot. When he goes back to DC after the Thanksgiving recess, he'll be voting for a $70-billion tax cut that helps families, too -- the wealthiest families in the country.

Two reads on the same McCain story

One of the things that makes politics so interesting is the ability of two people, two groups, or two political parties to look at the same information and reach totally different conclusions.

Case in point: David Broder's column in the WashPost on Sen. John McCain and his unflinching support for the war in Iraq:

No one outside the administration has been more adamant or outspoken in arguing that there is no substitute for victory in Iraq than has McCain, the Naval Academy graduate and survivor of years in a North Vietnamese prison camp. Others in the field of potential 2008 presidential candidates also support the war, but for none of them does it represent as large a gamble.

I read that column and concluded that if McCain doesn't change course, he may be the Republican nominee but can never be elected in 2008. I don't believe anyone who is still an Iraq hawk in 2008 can win. (I don't think changing your position in 2007 will work very well, either.) McCain's support for the war may well make him the Hubert Humphrey of 2008.

Interestingly (well, at least to me), Brian Christianson, who writes the Free Will blog, read the same column and reached the opposite conclusion. He seems to think McCain will be elected by acclamation.

Cheney soldiers on as Bush retreats

Even Veep Dick Chickenhawk -- I mean Cheney -- has toned down his rhetoric on Iraq critics a little bit, following the lead of his partner in crime, W Bush. Bush is now the good cop, Cheney the not-quite-as-bad cop. But he still gets his licks in.

The WashPost reports:

Cheney said in his speech today that he does not believe it is "wrong to criticize the war on terror or any aspect thereof" and that he enjoys "energetic debate on issues facing our country." He called [Rep. John] Murtha "a good man, a Marine, a patriot" and said that while he disagreed with him, the congressman was "taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion."

However, Cheney said: "What is not legitimate and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible is the suggestion by some U.S. senators that the president of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on prewar intelligence.

I guess if you were the chief of the "Find 'Evidence' of WMDs No Matter What" Unit, as Cheney was, you'd be a little testy about it, too.

UPDATE: Political Animal blog at Washington Monthly says Bush's line is that "I was wrong but so were you," while Cheney continues to argue that the administration was totally right when it decided to invade. That's a much harder sell.

And this, from Think Progress:

Cheney Rewrites The Headlines

Vice President Dick Cheney began his speech at the American Enterprise Institute today with the following statement:

My remarks today concern national security, in particular the war on terror and Iraq front in that war. Several days ago, I commented on some recent statements that have been made by some members of Congress about Iraq. Within hours of my speech, a report went out on the wires under the headline quote, Cheney Says War Critics Dishonest, Reprehensible, endquote. The one thing I’ve learned in the last five years is that when you’re vice president you’re lucky if your speeches get any attention at all but I do have a quarrel with that headline.

Here’s exactly what Cheney said just a few days ago, on November 16:

And the suggestion that’s been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.

To quote President Bush, it is “deeply irresponsible to rewrite history.”

--Steve Benson, United Media, via Cagle.

Lest you mistakenly think that the debate on Iraq is just partisan politics, read Newsweek on what made Rep. Jack Murtha stand up and do what he did:

Murtha was the one-man tipping point. Initially a strong supporter of the conflict, he had voted for it and the money to pay for it. But on his last trip to Iraq, he had become convinced not only that the war was unwinnable, but that the continued American military presence was making matters far worse. "We're the target, we're part of the problem," he told NEWSWEEK. Back in Washington, he resumed his weekly pilgrimage to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, visiting severely wounded casualties in rehab and agonizing over what he saw there. "I think those visits affected him deeply," said [Rep. Rosa] DeLauro.

In a long chat with an Irish colleague, he talked about his congressional hero and mentor, another blue-collar Irishman, Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill. No liberal on defense, in 1967 O'Neill had stunned President Lyndon B. Johnson by telling him that the Vietnam War had become a lost cause. Now, Murtha mused, it was his turn to confront a president with harsh truths.

Low-ranked firm gives campaign cash, gets contracts; one without even bidding

Suppose that Jim Doyle's administration awarded a $1.28-million contract to a company that scored sixth in a field of eight bidders.

Further suppose that two executives of that company were major donors to Doyle.

And then add the fact that after awarding this sixth-ranked company a million dollar-plus contract, the administration approved another $250,000 no-bid contract with the same company.

Republicans -- and the news media -- would be screaming bloody murder.

It's all true -- except for one little detail.

It's not the Doyle administration that gave those suspicious contracts to a campaign donor.

It is Scott Walker's Milwaukee County Government.

Eye On Wisconsin lays it out very well.

Can't wait for the front page headline.

Veterans affairs chief pleads ignorance of attempt to give him lifetime job

John Scocos says he's flattered that the state Board of Veterans Affairs thinks so highly of him that it is about to make him Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Life.

In a partisan power play, the Republican-appointed majority on the board wants to change the rules to make sure that if Democratic appointees ever get control of the board they still won't be able to get rid of Scocos, except with a unanimous vote of the seven members. (It now takes five votes to dismiss him.)

Although he suggested to Spivak and Bice that there was nothing unusual about the proposed change, it would make him the only department head in state government with that kind of protection.

Scocos talks as though he isn't even familiar with the proposed changes, which were introduced by board member Kathleen Marschman at the board's last meeting. Scocos tells the Spice Boys:

"I'm very flattered that the board would care that much about me . . . that the board would look to change the rules from five to whatever the number is (seven)," Scocos said, referring to the number of votes it would take to fire him.

As to why he needs all this extra body armor, he contended that there's nothing unusual about the special flak jacket he is set to receive.

"I'm not looking for any protection," Scocos said. He added, "I don't think it's any different than anybody else."

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that Scocos doesn't know that "whatever the number is" is seven, and hasn't reviewed all of the multiple changes Marschman wants the board to make.

And if he doesn't want any special protection, why doesn't he tell the board that? Scocos, who talks like the board operates in its own little world. actually runs a very tight ship. The board is at his beck and call. What Scocos wants, Scocos gets.

That could change, of course, if Democratic appointees ever get a majority. That's why Marschman, a Republican appointee whose term expired May 1, is maneuvering to make the change now. Her replacement, former State Sen. Rod Moen, has been nominated by Doyle, but the Republican-run State Senate hasn't confirmed Moen and Marschman has refused to resign so he can begin to serve.

Marschman was the board chair when Scocos, a former Republican staffer, was hired at a secret meeting, ignoring the governor's request to meet with the finalists before the board acted. Now she's leading the charge to make sure Scocos keeps the job as long as he wants, no matter who controls state government.

Scocos claims innocence of any involvement in coming up with the rule changes, and probably deserves the benefit of the doubt. But if Scocos wasn't involved, Marschman is probably doing the bidding of Scocos' patron, Speaker John Gard, who's always looking for another what to stick it to the Democrats.

With only two Doyle appointees on the current seven-member board, these changes seem to be wired. It only takes four votes to change the rules, and once the rules are changed Scocos, at age 49, will basically have a lifetime appointment to a job that now pays $118,000 a year.

The board will hold a teleconference on the proposed changes at 10 a.m. on Monday, Nov. 28, on the 8th floor of the WDVA headquarters at 30 W. Mifflin St., Madison. It is a public meeting. The board could act that day or defer action to its December meeting. There has been no public hearing, but some veterans are beginning to express their opinions.

Earlier post: Veterans affairs secretary moves to give himself more job security.

Some rough talk on the right

Republicans have taken great delight, of late, in the Democratic debate over the primary for attorney general between Peg Lautenschlager and Kathleen Falk.

Lest you get the impression that it's all sweetness and light over on the right, consider this from a new blog, Playground Politics, which says it's not partisan and calls 'em like it seems 'em, but clearly comes from the conservative end of the spectrum:

So here you go, Wisconsin. Your choices for governor next year are:

A two-faced hypocrite from Green Bay whose chief-of-staff took a bunch of freebies from a lobbyist who is under indictment for wire fraud and conspiracy

A college dropout from Milwaukee whose friend and fundraiser is under indictment for extortion and mail and wire fraud.

Jim Doyle.

Maybe Spencer Black isn't such a bad option after all ...

For sale: Public lands, private forest acreage

One more thing for which we can thank Reps. Mark Green, Paul Ryan, F. Jim Sensebrenner and Tom Petri:

The new budget bill their votes put over the top this week
will allow the sale of millions of acres to federal land in the West to developers, the NY Times reports.

Mike Dombek, a Wisconsinite who was chief of the US Forest Service job and is now back in Stevens Point, warned what that would mean in an LA Times op ed.

Closer to home, the Journal Sentinel's Lee Bergquist reports, more than 10-million acres of forest land are privately owned, and much of it is on the market and changing hands, raising some environmental concerns as subdivisions begin to sprout. Story.

Bush does about-face on war critics

Attention, right-wing bloggers:

New talking points, from the Commander in Chief himself, who must have seen some new polling.

You might want to go back and edit some of the vitriol you spewed in the last 72 hours.

Bush Tones Down Attack on Iraq War Critics
By TERENCE HUNT,
AP White House Correspondent

BEIJING - After fiercely defending his Iraq policy across Asia, President Bush abruptly toned down his attack on war critics Sunday and said there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy.

"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq," Bush said, three days after agreeing with Vice President Dick Cheney that the critics were "reprehensible."

The president also praised Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., as "a fine man" and a strong supporter of the military despite the congressman's call for troop withdrawal as soon as possible. . .

"I heard somebody say, `Well, maybe so-and-so is not patriotic because they disagree with my position.' I totally reject that thought," Bush said.

"This is not an issue of who's patriotic and who's not patriotic," he said. "It's an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq."

The whole story.

'One war lost, another to go'

Frank Rich in NY Times:

If anyone needs further proof that we are racing for the exits in Iraq, just follow the bouncing ball that is Rick Santorum. A Republican leader in the Senate and a true-blue (or red) Iraq hawk, he has long slobbered over President Bush, much as Ed McMahon did over Johnny Carson. But when Mr. Bush went to Mr. Santorum's home state of Pennsylvania to give his Veterans Day speech smearing the war's critics as unpatriotic, the senator was M.I.A.

Mr. Santorum preferred to honor a previous engagement more than 100 miles away. There he told reporters for the first time that "maybe some blame" for the war's "less than optimal" progress belonged to the White House. This change of heart had nothing to do with looming revelations of how the new Iraqi "democracy" had instituted Saddam-style torture chambers. Or with the spiraling investigations into the whereabouts of nearly $9 billion in unaccounted-for taxpayers' money from the American occupation authority. Or with the latest spike in casualties. Mr. Santorum was instead contemplating his own incipient political obituary written the day before: a poll showing him 16 points down in his re-election race.

No sooner did he stiff Mr. Bush in Pennsylvania than he did so again in Washington, voting with a 79-to-19 majority on a Senate resolution begging for an Iraq exit strategy. He was joined by all but one (Jon Kyl) of the 13 other Republican senators running for re-election next year. They desperately want to be able to tell their constituents that they were against the war after they were for it.

They know the voters have decided the war is over, no matter what symbolic resolutions are passed or defeated in Congress nor how many Republicans try to Swift-boat Representative John Murtha, the marine hero who wants the troops out. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup survey last week found that the percentage (52) of Americans who want to get out of Iraq fast, in 12 months or less, is even larger than the percentage (48) that favored a quick withdrawal from Vietnam when that war's casualty toll neared 54,000 in the apocalyptic year of 1970.

The Ohio State political scientist John Mueller, writing in Foreign Affairs , found that "if history is any indication, there is little the Bush administration can do to reverse this decline." He observed that Mr. Bush was trying to channel L. B. J. by making "countless speeches explaining what the effort in Iraq is about, urging patience and asserting that progress is being made. But as was also evident during Woodrow Wilson's campaign to sell the League of Nations to the American public, the efficacy of the bully pulpit is much overrated."

Mr. Bush may disdain timetables for our pullout, but, hello, there already is one, set by the Santorums of his own party: the expiration date for a sizable American presence in Iraq is Election Day 2006

Read the whole column on Truthout.

Ney not best advisor on clean government

Does the name Bob Ney ring a bell?

He's in the news as the first member of Congress to reveal he has been subpoenaed in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, and there are reports he may be the first member indicted, too.

But where have we heard that name?

Oh, right, Bob Ney is Mark Green's pal in the House of Representatives who came to Milwaukee to hold a phony hearing on election reform and tell the people of Wisconsin how to clean up their act.

When Bob Ney tells you how to clean up your act, you'd do well to consider the source.

Corruption inquiry threatens to ensnare lawmakers.

On Capitol Hill, Ney is the mayor.

How many more?

Sparta soldier killed in Iraq

When he was about 10 years old, Alex Gaunky stared up apprehensively at the climbing wall in the field house of the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.

He climbed up several feet, but fear brought him back down. He tried again, climbing a little higher, came back down and tried several more times, reaching a greater height each time, his father, David Gaunky, recalled Friday.

"He kept trying until he finally made it to the top, and pretty soon was trying the harder sections of wall," David Gaunky said in a telephone interview.

"He never let fear keep him from doing something that he wanted to do."

That persistent attitude drove Alex Gaunky to enlist in the Army fresh out of high school after the Navy turned him down because of a food allergy about a year and a half ago, said his father, who learned Friday morning of his son's death in Iraq.

The 19-year-old private first class from Sparta was a combat engineer with the Army's 101st Airborne Division. He was injured when the Humvee he was riding in was struck by a vehicle that came across a road and crashed into his convoy, his father said.

The soldier, who had been in Iraq for about 2 1/2 months, died Friday morning while being airlifted to Germany, his father said.

Read the whole story

Jack Murtha changes the debate

Like most Americans, I didn't know who Jack Murtha was until about 48 hours ago, when he stood up and spoke out on the war in Iraq.

Murtha, a crusty old Marine from Pennsylvania, changed the debate when he called for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The spectacle on the House floor Friday night (I watched C-Span for two hours straight for the first time in recent memory) is just the beginning.

Murtha is a Democrat with unquestioned credentials as a supporter of our military and of the men and women who fight our wars. Shameful attempts to portray him as a coward who wants the US to surrender backfired badly on the Republicans who launched them.

Murtha deserves our thanks. What he did this week was not easy. He broke ranks with many of his friends in the Congress. But he did it because he truly supports the troops, and believes they have become targets in an Iraq shooting gallery while the administration has no plan to get them out.

MoveOn suggests we let Murtha know we appreciate what he's doing.

You can write him at:

Honorable John P. Murtha
2423 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Honorable John P. Murtha
P.O. Box 780
Johnstown, PA 15907

Or call his offices. His phones have been jammed, but try next week.

Washington, DC Office of Rep. Murtha
202-225-2065

Johnstown Office of Rep. Murtha
814-535-2642

GOP pulls cheap political stunt on Iraq

They just don't get it.

How dumb do House Republicans think the voters are?

Totally crazed by the call yesterday by a Democratic hawk and decorated Vietnam vet, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, the GOP reacted angrily, along the lines of "You want a vote on withdrawal? Fine, we'll give you one right now -- only it won't even be on your own proposal. We'll make it the most extreme position we can think of, and then see how you like it."

AP reports:

Murtha offered a resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

But House Republicans planned to put to a vote — and reject — their own resolution that simply said: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

So the only "cut and run" resolution is from the Republicans. It will probably be defeated uninimously, because no one -- no one -- has called for US troops to leave today.

Maybe, when Congress returns from its recess, cooler heads will prevail and we can have a real debate on Iraq, how to disengage, and when.

If that happens, it will be because Republicans home for Thanksgiving actually listen to the voters in their home states, who want a plan for withdrawal. The polls get worse and worse, but the Republicans remain in denial. People want out -- not today, but, as Murtha proposed, "at the earliest practicable date."

What we are seeing is the tyranny of the majority. It is a full-scale Republican meltdown. This may have seemed like a stroke of genius while the anger-fueled adrenalin was flowing. But I predict the Republicans will come to rue the day they exposed themselves with this shabby, cheap trick.

Bloggers are journalists, sort of

"Yesterday I couldn't even spell journalist and now I are one." -- ApocryphalBlogger.com

The Federal Election Commission didn't exactly declare bloggers to be journalists, but it did rule yesterday that blogs are exempt from regulation for political activity, and it did cite the "press exemption" from campaign finance laws.

BNA Money and Politics Report:

The decision to provide bloggers with the same press exemption for FEC rules long enjoyed by members of the traditional media represented a "powerful statement," according to Michael Toner, the FEC's Republican vice chair. Toner said the action recognized that it was the goal of the Federal Election Campaign Act "to protect the media in all its forms."

He noted that the law has long guaranteed the right of any media outlet to discuss political campaigns and even endorse candidates, so long as it is not controlled by a candidate or political party.

More information related to the Fire Up! advisory opinion is available online at FEC.gov The Fired Up! America Web site, which asked for the ruling, is at FiredUpAmerica

--Vic Harville, Stephens Media Group, via Cagle

Green, other Badgers provide winning margin for $50-billion in cuts

Wisconsin's four Republicans provided the winning margin early today as the House voted 217-215 to pass a budget plan that slashes programs for the poor, college students and farmers, among others.

To get the votes for passage, leadership jettisoned a provision to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and softened the cuts in food stamps and other programs slightly, from $54-billion to about $50-billion. AP story.

You could argue that each of the Wisconsin members -- Mark Green, Paul Ryan, F. Jim Sensenbrenner and Tom Petri -- cast the deciding vote for passage. If any one of them had voted "no" the bill would have failed on a tie vote -- or the leadership, which already held the vote open longer than the rules allow in order to round up the votes, would have scrambled some more.

That could be more of an issue for Green than the others, since he is running for governor and just cast the deciding vote to cut programs that will hurt people in Wisconsin. Green issued a release saying he was proud of his vote; he will no doubt get a chance to defend it. [UPDATE: Green suggests he traded his vote to get a pledge from the Speaker on the MILC program.]

No details yet on what happened to the proposed slash in money for child support enforcement, which had Wisconsin officials, including Green's primary opponent, Scott Walker, dismayed.

The Journal Sentinel reported on Nov. 8:

Wisconsin would lose an estimated $143.5 million in child support enforcement money over the next five years, according to a state estimate. Milwaukee County, with the state's biggest child support caseload, would lose some $9.5 million in 2008 - more than half its budget for finding child support scofflaws.

With dim prospects for scraping up replacement funding from either the state or counties, the federal reduction could translate into layoffs of half the Milwaukee County child support enforcement staff of 207, officials said.

"It's going to be devastating" for low-income families that rely on child support, said Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. "By doing this, you're really just pushing families more likely deeper into poverty" and into public assistance programs such as food stamps, the Wisconsin Works welfare reform program and Medicaid, he said.

If those cuts were part of the package that Green voted for, it could provide the basis for the first real difference of opinion between Walker and Green. Will Walker dare to criticize Green for cutting the budget? Let's watch and see.

UPDATE: Rep. Tammy Baldwin is angry.“This bill punishes sick children, struggling students, and their hard-working parents to pay for tax cuts for a wealthy few,” she says. Baldwin even used the "H" word -- heartless -- that caused an uproar when the Dem Party and I used it to describe Sensenbrenner's vote against hurricane aid. Baldwin, Dave Obey, Gwen Moore and Ron Kind all voted no on the budget bill.

UPDATE 2: Eye On Wisconsin reviews Paul Ryan's C-Span performance.

White House's pathetic attack on Murtha

Bob Geiger on the Yellow Dog Blog:

Some smears by Team Bush are infuriating and some are just flat-out desperate and pathetic. The White House issued this press release last night on John Murtha's (D-PA) call for an immediate U.S. exit from Iraq:

Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled -- nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.

Now, there's nothing in the world wrong with Moore's positions, so he's not really the issue here. Plus, making Michael Moore the liberal bogyman is just so 2004.

But is this really the best they can do? Did they run out of Purple Heart Band Aids to wear around the Capitol to ridicule Murtha's military decorations as they did with John Kerry last year? To me, this, and the other Republican hysterics yesterday, are a very positive sign of an opposition coming apart at the seams.

In Murtha, you have a 73-year-old man, who spent 37 years in the Marine Corps, is a thrice-decorated combat veteran who's been given the American Legion National Distinguished Public Service Award and the Iron Mike Award -- the highest honor of the Marine Corps League -- and the GOP tries to paint him as a wimp who wants to "surrender to the terrorists."

Here's a Congressman elected 15 times by his constituents, who's been given the Pennsylvania Distinguished Service Medal, the Public Service Award of the National Security Industry Association and been honored as a health-care champion by a long list of cancer groups -- and their best shot is to try to make him look like a left-wing, evil-doer?

Where does being nasty and craven end and being a bizarre caricature of a political party begin?

Does anyone else hear a Swift Boat engine revving up yet?

---

This from Dana Milbank in the WashPost:

In his 37 years in the military, John Murtha won two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star with a Combat "V," and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. As a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania for the past 31 years, he has been a fierce hawk, championing conflicts in Central America and the Persian Gulf.

Yesterday, he was called a coward.

Read the rest.

To arms! To arms! The gays are coming!

So State Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, a prime Republican sponsor of the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages and civil unions in Wisconsin, says this issue is "not a fight the Wisconsin Legislature picked," the LaCrosse Tribune reports.

It's just part of a "raging national debate" that began when the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, he claims.

Right. Wisconsin Republicans were forced to raise the issue. It's not political, even though the Rs admit they are are carefully timing the referendum to be on the ballot in November 2006, in hopes it will do some damage to Gov. Jim Doyle and other Ds.

Can you say hypocrisy? Better yet, can you say bullshit?

This issue was not forced on Wisconsin Republicans. It's one they eagerly seized, as a way to mobilize the wingnut elements of their base (which are legion, apparently.)

The "gotta-do-it" argument of Fitzgerald and other Republican sponsors of the hate-gays amendment falls on its face when you consider one simple fact:

Gay marriage is already against the law in Wisconsin. There is no need to pass another law, and certainly no need to pass a constitutional amendment -- unless the Rs are afraid that sometime in the future the voters might be more enlightened and tolerant and decide to change the law.

The amendment is politically-motivated and will appeal to people by playing on their fears, asking them to follow their worst instincts and vote for intolerance and prejudice.

Fitzgerald and his Republican cohorts may try to hide behind the Massachusetts decision. They need some excuse, because the truth -- that this amendment is fueled by hate, fear, prejudice and politics -- is too embarrassing to admit.

Joshua Freker at No on the Amendment has more.

Quote, unquote

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”

-- Dick Cheney, chief liar of them all, on Aug. 26, 2002.

Vrakas sets the bar high

Waukesha, WIS. – With only nine business days in office, newly elected Waukesha County Executive Dan Vrakas announced his 2006 budget vetoes totaling $610,000 in expenditure cuts and $360,000 in tax levy savings at the Administration Center today. --Vrakas news release.

He might want to lower expectations a little. At that rate, Waukesha County taxpayers could expect Vrakas to cut spending by $16.9-million and the tax levy by $10-million, assuming there are 250 business days a year. I think he'll come up a little short, leaving people to wonder what's happened to him and what he's done for them lately.

The Thoughtful Conservative is not impressed.

A hunting we will go ...

Well, thank God someone in Congress has his priorities straight.

Maybe he hopes the Democrats will come out against hunting.

What a waste of time and money.

Right Brothers rockin' for the right

This from Think Progress:

“Bush Was Right!” — The New Hit Single Ready to Rock a Generation

RightMarch.com, a conservative online advocacy group, has launched a campaign trying to get a right-wing musical duo, The Right Brothers, onto MTV.

Well grab your iPods and crank up your speakers, because ThinkProgress has a sneak preview of the Brothers’ new single, “Bush Was Right.” If any song was ever a virtual lock to top the TRL charts, it’s got to be this rockin’ tribute to all things Bush.

Some sample lyrics and an audio excerpt below (and no, this is not a parody):

Freedom in Afghanistan,
say goodbye Taliban
Free elections in Iraq,
Saddam Hussein locked up
Osama’s staying underground,
Al Qaida now is finding out
America won’t turn and run
once the fighting has begun
Don’t you know that all this means
…Bush was right! Bush was right!

Real Media MP3

[UPDATE: MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann put together a music video for the song. Crooks & Liars has the video.]

RightMarch.com has big plans for The Right Brothers. Here’s a bit more from a recent email to their supporters (again, this is not a parody, we promise):

This is what the youth in America need. They’re already bombarded with songs on the radio and videos on MTV that trash our President, conservative beliefs, and traditional American values. From “Mosh” by Eminem, to “Idiot Son of an A**hole” by NOFX… all of these songs serve to fill young people’s minds with LIES. […]

WILL YOU HELP US? We’re putting together a “kickin’” music video right now, and we’re preparing a HUGE grassroots campaign to get hundreds of thousands of people to request “Bush Was Right!” on MTV’s “Total Request Live” show… leading to our demands for it to be played in regular rotation!

If they DON’T - then we’ll hit the media in a BIG way, showing how MTV plays left-wing videos while CENSORING conservative videos!

Full text of the email (with song lyrics) here.

'I like guys with five deferments who send people to war...'

In recent days, President Bush and other top administration officials have lashed out at critics of the war and have accused Democrats of advocating a ''cut and run'' strategy that will only embolden the insurgency. Speaker Dennis Hastert called it a "white flag" policy today.

Vice President Dick Cheney jumped into the fray Wednesday by assailing Democrats who contend the Bush administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq, calling their criticism ''one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.''

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., (pictured) a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney: ''I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.''

Referring to Bush, Murtha added: ''I resent the fact, on Veterans Day, he criticized Democrats for criticizing them.'' Murtha, one of the leading Democratic hawks, called today for US troops to pull out of Iraq.

And Murtha knows a Chickenhawk when he sees one.

Bad bill beaten, no thanks to Badger Rs

With the help of 22 Republicans -- none of them from Wisconsin, of course - the House has defeated, on a 229-204 vote, an appropriations bill that would have cut education spending and slashed health care programs. It was a major defeat for the GOP, who had their priorities screwed on wrong. Dems said the bill hurt some of the nation's neediest people. WashPost story.
But Mark Green, Paul Ryan, F. Jim Sensenbrenner and Tom Petri voted the party line.

Quote, unquote

"It is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region . . .The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."

-- Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a senior Democratic hawk and Marine veteran of Vietnam, calling for US withdrawal.

Objections to photo ID swept under rug

Well, waddya know? Even the Bush Justice Department had some reservations about Georgia's photo ID bill for voters, but swept them under the rug. WashPost reports:

Criticism of Voting Law Was Overruled
Justice Dept. Backed Georgia Measure Despite Fears of Discrimination

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer

A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it was likely to discriminate against black voters, but they were overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice, according to department documents...

But an Aug. 25 staff memo obtained by The Washington Post recommended blocking the program because Georgia failed to show that the measure would not dilute the votes of minority residents, as required under the Voting Rights Act.

The memo, endorsed by four of the team's five members, also said the state had provided flawed and incomplete data. The team found significant evidence that the plan would be "retrogressive," meaning that it would reduce blacks' access to the polls.

A day later, on Aug. 26, the chief of the department's voting rights section, John Tanner, told Georgia officials that the program could go forward. "The Attorney General does not interpose any objection to the specified changes," he said in a letter to them...

The Georgia voter ID program has been the subject of fierce partisan debate since it was approved by the state's Republican-controlled legislature in March. The plan was blocked on constitutional grounds in October by a U.S. District Court judge, who compared the measure to a Jim Crow-era poll tax. A three-judge appellate panel, made up of one Democratic and two Republican appointees, upheld the lower court's injunction.

The program requires voters to obtain one of six forms of photo identification before going to the polls, as opposed to 17 types of identification currently allowed. Those without a driver's license or other photo identification are required to obtain a special digital identification card, which would cost $20 for five years and could be obtained from motor vehicle offices in only 59 of the state's 159 counties.

Of course it is likely to discriminate against black voters. Duh. That's the point of the bill, just like the Wisconsin proposal the Republicans are now pushing as a constitutional amendment. But the black voters "sin" isn't being black; it's voting overwhelmingly Democratic.

Patriot Act hijacked by White House

UPDATE: Bloomberg reports there may not be enough votes to pass the new version. All the more reason to keep the pressure on. Feingold is one of a bipartisan group of Senators who say they will try to block passage unless changes are made.

---

The so-called compromise on the Patriot Act, reached last night, is a blow to those who hoped the renewal of the act could at least fix some of the worst things in the original version.

Basically, the conference committee caved in to the White House.

Sen. Russ Feingold, who fought in the Senate to win some improvements in the bill, said he will oppose the conference committee report:

“In July, members on both sides of the aisle in the Senate unanimously agreed that changes needed to be made to the PATRIOT Act and passed a bill that took important steps to protect Americans’ rights and freedoms. Unfortunately... the conference committee [has rejected] that bipartisan consensus.

In 2001, I was alone in the Senate in opposing the Patriot Act. But for the past several years, a bipartisan coalition has been working together to seek modifications. I agreed to support the Senate version of the reauthorization bill even though it did not go nearly as far as the SAFE Act. I cannot stand by while the conference committee undermines the modest protections for our rights and freedoms contained in the Senate bill. The American people deserve better.

Working with my colleagues, I will consider all procedural options at my disposal to fight a final reauthorization bill that doesn’t fix the Patriot Act.”

The Washington Post:

Republicans and Democrats said the agreement is a victory for[Rep. F. James] Sensenbrenner, who defended the expanded government powers enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Civil libertarians and liberal Democrats lamented the deal as another blow to individual rights. And three Democratic senators and three GOP senators declared the agreement unacceptable last night.

"Is Congress standing up to the president? No, not on this one," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), a House Judiciary Committee Democrat.

Votes could come very soon, even this week. Opponents are mobilizing and asking for calls to members of Congress to urge them to oppose the new version. More info from ACLU.

Smears, lies and videotape

While the Republican National Committee and its gaggle of talk show hosts and bloggers peddles its video showing -- what, that Democrats were misled during the rampup to the Iraq war? -- there's another video worth checking out.

This from Think Progress:

The story of the CIA leak scandal is far from over. But so much has already happened, sometimes it’s easy to miss the big picture.

We’ve created a video to help you keep everything straight. It uses footage pulled directly from the White House, recent TV news clips and other archival video to explain exactly what happened and why it’s important. Most of the story is told by administration officials themselves.

Check it out.

It's long, but worth watching.

If it's not 1968, could it be 1970?

In August, I explored, at some length, the question of whether 2005 is the year 1968 reincarnated. Short answer: Not a perfect match, but close. And, like 1968, it is definitely time to take a stand on the war.

Now comes USA Today with the suggestion that it's really 1970, based on recent polling. Susan Page writes:

[W]hen it comes to public opinion, Americans' attitudes toward Iraq and the course ahead are strikingly similar to public attitudes toward Vietnam in the summer of 1970, a pivotal year in that conflict and a time of enormous domestic unrest.

Some political scientists and historians predict that the Iraq conflict, like the one in Vietnam, will shape American attitudes on foreign policy and the use of military force long after it's over.

"This war is probably a really big deal historically in terms of America's perspective on the world," says John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University. "What you're going to get after this is 'We don't want to do that again — No more Iraqs' just as after Vietnam the syndrome was 'No more Vietnams.' "

In a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, more than half of those surveyed wanted to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within the next 12 months. In 1970, roughly half of those surveyed wanted to withdraw U.S. troops from Vietnam within 12 months. ( Compare poll results)

In both surveys, about one-third supported withdrawing troops over as many years as needed, and about one in 10 wanted to send more troops.

Finally, there is the embattled vice-president casting aspersions on opponents of the war. In 1969 it was Spiro Agnew, calling Vietnam war critics "an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as 'intellectuals.'" Dick Cheney plays the Agnew role this time around, questioning the patriotism, loyalty and motives of those who want the US out of Iraq. Many of us have heard that song before.

If opposition to the war is at 1970 levels, that's encouraging. But remember that it took three more years to get US troops out of Vietnam. The earliest target date anyone has proposed is Dec. 31, 2006, by Sen. Russ Feingold. Meanwhile, 52% of respondents to USA Today's survey want US troops out of Iraq within 12 months -- basically the Feingold target.

Bush has said we will stay in Iraq as long as he's President. That would be a tragic mistake, just as it's tragic that 30 years after we said "No more Vietnams" the U.S. is back in the Big Muddy, with W saying to push on.

Pigs fly on health care issue

You would think a conservative columnist like the Journal Sentinel's Patrick McIlheran would sing in the right-wing chorus that automatically opposes any health care reform that involves government. You'd expect him to be open to that kind of plan when pigs fly.

His column this week was a surprise. Some pigs are getting ready for takeoff. He writes:

Remember that statewide health plan proposed last summer - universal coverage, bipartisan sponsors, smelling kind of socialized and vanishing quickly?

It didn't vanish. It was tinkered, and, says its Republican patron, Rep. Curt Gielow of Mequon, it's coming back to the Capitol, perhaps by the first of the year.

It's not socialized, either - so much the opposite that it's worth another look.

That's remarkable. Even Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce tells him it's worth thinking outside the box -- for now, at least.

In an op ed in the Wisconsin State Journal, State Rep. Curt Gielow, R-Mequon, co-sponsor of the bill with State Rep. Jon Richards, D-Milwaukee, says:

In any case, serious consideration should be given to reform ideas like the Wisconsin Health Plan and the AFL-CIO health care plan, which would standardize payments to providers and restore true "pooling" to the health insurance market.

One thing is certain: The status quo is not working for the majority of Wisconsinites who are paying more out of pocket for health care every year.

You can learn more about the plan at the Wisconsin Health Project website.

Taking the pledge on Iraq

From an editorial in The Nation, titled, Democrats and the War:

The Nation therefore takes the following stand: We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, but we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still. Fear of facing the consequences of Bush's disaster should not be permitted to excuse the creation of a worse disaster by continuing the occupation.

I signed the pledge from Democracy for America a month ago. You can do it here.

Hat tip: Sadie Says.

-- Bruce Plant, Chatanooga Times Free Press via Cagle.
From Grist:

Don't Just Lie There

Oil industry execs caught fibbing; may lose tax break; still filthy rich.

Last week, while testifying at a Senate hearing, oil industry executives were asked point blank: "Did your company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001?" The answers? Three No's, an "I don't know," and a "not to my knowledge." Turns out these were ... what's the word? ... lies. A document released to The Washington Post shows that officials from at least four of the companies did in fact participate. The execs weren't under oath, but by law, making "any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress can get you a fine or up to five years in jail. To add to Big Oil's woes, a Senate committee voted yesterday to rescind a tax break and change accounting rules for the industry, moves that could cost big oil companies up to $6 billion over the next few years. The measures were added to a larger tax-cutting bill that faces a tough road through the full Senate and the House.

straight to the source: The Washington Post, Dana Milbank and Justin Blum, 16 Nov 2005

straight to the source: Reuters, Tom Doggett, 16 Nov 2005

Cheney: Bad messenger, bad message

So Dick Cheney, with his 36% approval rating, is spending what precious little political capital he has left, to try to prop up the administration's failure in Iraq.

What on earth makes him think anyone will listen or believe him when, by all accounts, he was the driving force to the fudge the evidence and sell the war to the American public? He has zero credibility on this issue.

WashPost report:

Vice President Cheney last night accused Democratic senators who allege that the Bush administration distorted intelligence to justify the war in Iraq of
engaging in "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

Speaking before a Washington dinner of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, a conservative research organization, Cheney said that Democrats who say they were misled by the administration are "making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war."

As Pee Wee might say,
"I know you are, but what am I?"

Wal-Mart railroad coming down the track

The Jefferson city government appears hell-bent on getting a new Wal-Mart superstore and, in the process, resisting any efforts to tighten the annexation process for this or future developments.

To recap: The Jefferson City Council rejected the annexation Wal-Mart wanted awhile back, which prompted the successful recall of one of the aldermen, Dave Olsen.

Once Olsen was gone, the annexation was re-introduced.

Then a citizen group, using the state's direct legislation law, filed enough signatures to require the council to either adopt a new ordinance regulating annexation, or put it on the ballot for a referendum.

The council decided Tuesday night not to do either,claiming the proposed change was "administrative" and therefore didn't qualify. See a court fight coming?

For details, see The Watertown Daily Times and The Daily Jefferson County Union.

And yet another poll

This one from Strategic Vision, a Republican firm, but not one hired by either of the candidates.

It shows Mark Green leading Scott Walker in the GOP primary 45-39, and Jim Doyle with a margin-of-error lead over both Republicans.

Green's campaign crowed about it, but if you look at the other questions you'll find that Green, who's joined at the hip to George Bush and his policies, has some real problems. For example:

Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush's overall job performance?
Approve 29%
Disapprove 62%
Undecided 9%

Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush's handling of the economy?
Approve 27%
Disapprove 63%
Undecided 10%

Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq?
Approve 32%
Disapprove 60%
Undecided 8%

Would you like to see the United States Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade?
Yes 36%
No 56%
Undecided 8%

Would you like to see the United States withdraw all troops immediately from Iraq?
Yes 49%
No 40%
Undecided 11%

Green, who talks up his pro-war, pro-life, pro-Bush record at every opportunity, may have hitched his wagon to a black hole instead of a star. Earlier post: Bad news for Bush = Good news for Walker?

AFTERTHOUGHT: They keep hyping how well Tommy Thompson does against Herb Kohl in a Senate matchup, which isn't going to happen, but never test candidates who might actually run, like Tim Michels. Why do you suppose that is? They don't want to scare him out.

---

And a who cares? SurveyUSA poll finds Dick Cheney -- surprise! -- isn't very popular, either. In Wisconsin it's 34% positive, 64% negative. In the same ballpark as Bush. Cheney has a positive rating in only three states -- Wyoming, Utah and Idaho. Apparently the militia still likes him.

Another day, another poll

This time it's the St. Norbert poll, which has always been a little suspect because it's done over a long period of time. Most of the time, it has been slightly too Republican when comparing the numbers to actual election results.

Jim Doyle has quite a lead over Mark Green and Scott Walker. Green's guy says it's early and that's true. Walker's guy says Doyle should have over 50% (he's at 46%), which once was conventional wisdom for incumbents but is not any more.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Here's the easiest way to analyze it: Would you rather be Doyle with 46% or Walker with 31%? Doyle with 45% or Green with 32%?

Here are the results.

Feingold makes national news, but major Wisconsin papers spike it

They say a prophet is without honor in his own country.

Latest example: A national Associated Press story credits Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold with playing a key role in the debate over the war in Iraq:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Five months ago, Sen. Russ Feingold introduced a resolution urging President Bush to give Congress a time frame for bringing troops home from Iraq. Only one senator, California Democrat Barbara Boxer, co-sponsored it.

But on Tuesday, 40 senators, including Feingold, voted for essentially the same idea: a Democratic amendment calling on Bush to outline a "campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment'' of U.S. troops.

Although the amendment failed on a mostly party-line vote, the fact that it was front and center on the Senate floor shows how Feingold's idea had moved from the periphery to the mainstream.

"It's real clear to me that people have finally figured out how upset the American people are with this Iraq situation,'' Feingold, D-Wis., said in a telephone interview.

Feingold, who introduced the resolution in June, followed that up with a call in August for a target date of Dec. 31, 2006, to complete the military mission and remove all U.S. forces. The Democratic amendment Tuesday did not include a specific date.

After the amendment was defeated, the Senate approved a Republican alternative that said 2006 "should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty,'' with Iraqi forces taking the lead in providing security to create conditions for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces.

"I feel like we've made some real progress,'' Feingold said. "This is light years away from where I started.''

There's more, and you can find it in the San Jose Mercury-News or the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

But for some reason you won't find it in Wisconsin's two biggest newspapers, the Journal Sentinel or Wisconsin State Journal. Theories or explanations welcome.

'Just say no to sex' campaign should end teenage pregancy, right?

So the assortment of wingnuts and wackos that we refer to collectively as the Republican majority in the Wisconsin Legislature is about to end teenage pregnancy.

How? By ending teenage sex -- in fact, ending all premarital sex.

How? By telling kids in school about abstinence.

Young people, it seems, have never heard of abstaining from sex as an option. Or if they have, it's been forgotten. As Jay Bullock explains on his Folkbum blog, "teaching them about condoms crowds all that they ever heard about abstinence out of their brains."

"Here's today's lesson, Class: Just don't do it, kids. It's no fun, kind of messy, you can get all kinds of icky diseases, and -- don't forget -- that's where babies come from."

That should do the trick.

If that works, let's stop smoking next.

Racine exec thinks he's the emperor

Bill McReynolds, Racine County exec and would-be state senator, must have been absent the day they discussed separation of powers in civics class.

McReynolds apparently has the impression that everyone in Racine County government works directly for him. He's forgotten there's this other thing, called the legislative branch. He's the executive, not the emperor.

How else to explain McReynolds' outrageous order to county staff, directing them not to speak to an elected county supervisor, but to refer her to him if she has questions.

The supervisor, Diane Lange, "has a tendency to work outside of the system," McReynolds told the Journal Times.

What system is that? It's the Old Boy, You-Scratch-My-Back-I'll-Scratch-Yours, No Questions Asked system. It operates in a lot of local governments, unfortunately. Everyone goes along to get along, afraid to rock the boat for fear of being isolated or considered a troublemaker.

That, apparently, is how McReynolds sees Lange.

I don't know Diane Lange. She might be a pain in the rear. But the voters in her district elected her to the County Board. That gives her the right to ask questions and expect answers, without having to go through the county executive.

The newspaper reports:

McReynolds said he has directed county employees to refer ...Lange to him if she asks them any questions or requests any information. Once she makes contact with his office, McReynolds said, she will be free to talk with county employees.

"I have directed the county staff that if she (Lange), as a County Board supervisor, needs assistance, she is to communicate that with me ... and then she has free access to the staff," McReynolds said Friday. "She is not denied access to staff."

Lange said on Friday that county department heads and McReynolds' Chief of Staff Geoff Greiveldinger declined to talk with her in recent weeks, citing McReynolds' "gag order." Instead, they referred her to McReynolds, she said.

Lange said she met with McReynolds on Friday in hopes that he would rescind the gag order on the county staff, but he refused.

"After the meeting, I realized I was going to have to fight this because it's making me ineffective as a supervisor," she said.

Just what have Lange's sins been? She has disagreed with McReynolds on some major issues, like a $19 million jail expansion, which she opposed.

But the real issue may be something a little closer to McReynolds' heart -- his travel budget, which Lange tried to cut in half. She lost, but McReynolds was "infuriated," Lange said.

Back to the newspaper:

"This is a vindictive response based on his disapproval that I had gone after the travel money," she said. "... He's gone overboard on his power as county executive at this point."

McReynolds said his order to staff, with regard to Lange, does not apply to other County Board supervisors - only her. He said the order was needed because Lange often was "coming out of left field" with her ideas and that she caused conflict within his office with the requests she made to staff, or by not working with others.

For example, he said, Lange introduced a $25,000 amendment to the county budget on Tuesday that key officials didn't know about - including people closely affiliated with the drug and alcohol court program the money would benefit.

"She has a tendency to work outside of the system," he said. "We're just going to deal with Supervisor Lange within the manner of the rules. We want to know where she's coming from. She will not be denied any access to staff."

As for whether he was upset with Lange over her proposal to cut his budget, McReynolds said: "She can tell whatever story she wants to."

Greiveldinger declined to comment on McReynolds' orders with regard to Lange. "What he (McReynolds) directs me to do or not do I generally don't comment on," he said.

The Journal Times editorializes today. Headline: McReynolds should rescind petty information policy."

Bad news for Bush = good news for Walker?

Bruce Murphy, editor of Milwaukee Magazine, thinks President Bush's horrific poll numbers -- generally seen as terrible news for Republican candidates in 2006 -- could actually have a silver lining for Scott Walker.

Walker, the Milwaukee County exec, isn't part of the DC/Congressional mess, Murphy's argument goes, while Mark Green, his primary opponent for governor, will have a much harder time getting any distance from the Pres, since he's been voting with him every day in the House for the last five years.

Problems with that analysis?

The biggest is that Republican primary voters probably still like Bush today and will be loyal to their President in 2006, too. Convincing Republicans that being close to Bush is a bad thing is likely to be a very hard sell.

Until now, Green and Walker have emphasized their ties to Bush.

Green's campaign website bio, complete with photo of Green, Bush and a football jersey, says:

Green has developed a close relationship with the White House, working with the president and his team to advance the Bush agenda – from the president's Faith-Based Initiative to counterterrorism policy – on Capitol Hill. For the last six years, Green has also served on the House Republican Leadership team as a majority whip, operating together with the House speaker and others to keep the Republican conference united during difficult floor fights with Democrats.

Walker's website bio is less effusive about Bush, but stresses his Bush-Cheney credentials:

Scott is also an active Republican. In the early 1990s, he was chairman of the 5th Congressional district Republican Party and a member of the executive board of the Republican Party of Wisconsin. He served as the chair of the platform committee, and in 1998 he was the chair of the state convention. In 2000, he was the Bush/Cheney county chair and in 2004, he was one of the statewide co-chairs for the Bush/Cheney campaign. . .

You'll find photos of Walker warming up the crowd at Bush-Cheney events, but no shot of him with the President. (As I recall there was a Bush photo on his campaign website when he ran for county exec last year.) Did he see the Bush disaster coming? I'm sure the Dems will have no trouble finding photos and reminding the voters of Walker's role in the Bush campaign, should he become the nominee.

Green's biggest problem may not be George Bush but his unquestioning, unytielding support for the war in Iraq. Green founded the Victory in Iraq caucus. At the rate things are going, having that war hung around his neck could be a lot more disastrous than standing too close to George W. Bush.

But again, we are talking about a Republican primary.

If Walker can make electability an issue, without looking like he's running against Bush (while he does just that), maybe there's a slight benefit.

But the base Repubican primary voters want red meat, we're told. To win the primary, you need to veer to the right. (There's actually not much veering room for Green or Walker anyway. They're already hugging the right shoulder of the road.) Running away from Bush, no matter how unpopular he is, may not sit well with the base. (God love 'em, that base may help us re-elect Jim Doyle).

One thing is certain: Whoever survives the primary is not likely to be putting "Republican" on his campaign commercials, literature, and signs. You can take that prediction to the bank.

Who is DC's biggest turkey?

Just in time for Thanksgiving, the Sierra Club wants to know: Who's the biggest turkey in Washington?

Is it Brownie, at right, or some other culprit?

Frankly, I think some of the major candidates are missing from the list. But maybe turkey is too kind a title for Bush, Cheney and a few others at the top. And it might upset the turkey lobby.

Who's the biggest skunk? The biggest weasel? The biggest jackass?

But I digress.

Here are the Sierra Club's nominees.

Quote, unquote

It has been a long time since we were privileged to endorse his candidacy for the presidency. But we are not inclined to withdraw it quite yet. Indeed, were it left to this newspaper, we would gladly replace George Bush, a man who avoided serving his country in a time of war but has few qualms about sending others to die for it, with George McGovern, a man who proudly served when his country called but who has always recognized that the call must be made only when it is absolutely necessary. So we issue our endorsement once more: McGovern for president.

-- Capital Times editorial, as McGovern visited Madison for a campus speech this week.

Pre-emptive strike on RNC video

Is it possible I can post this even before McSykes & Co. begin to tout the new RNC video about Democrats and Iraq?

The right-wing blogs are all over it, claiming it shows that if W lied about the war, Democrats did, too, or some such drivel.

Here are a few insightful comments on the video -- not from some Democratic apologist, but from a usually credible source, if Rs admit there are any in the mainstream media any more -- The Note, produced by ABC News' political unit:

The RNC today has released a Web video which paints Democrats as hypocrites for criticizing the Iraq war after having warned about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction before the war began.

The video includes footage of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, former President Clinton, then-Gov. Howard Dean (from Canadian TV in 1998!), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Foreign Relations Ranking Member Joe Biden (D-DE), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

The video ends with an excerpt from President Bush's Veterans Day speech in which he excoriates his Democratic opponents.

It's an impressive collection of video and a clear sign that the RNC is prepared to do combat on Iraq not only with the newly re-assertive Democratic congressional leadership but also with several potential Democratic '08ers.

It should be Noted, however, that the video is misleading in two ways: first, the President's Veterans Day speech is used to suggest that all the Democrats featured in the video voted for the war — an implication that is not true.

Second, the RNC video implies that all of the Democrats shown in the video have turned against the Iraq war — something that's also not true.

To illustrate point number one, take Leader Pelosi.

The video shows Pelosi telling NBC's Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" that Saddam Hussein "certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

But Pelosi voted against the war. As she told ABC News in an on-camera interview for "World News Tonight" last week: "The intelligence never said that whatever Saddam Hussein was doing posed an imminent threat to the United States and I guess because he knows he is wrong he has to flail out and attack others."

Or take Sen. Clinton: In the Web video, Russert asks her if she thinks disarmament is possible without regime change. She answers: "I doubt it" and adds that she can support the President and that she thinks what he is doing is in the "long-term interests" of the country.

The implication from showing this video is that Sen. Clinton has flipped — but she hasn't.

Just ask Cindy Sheehan.

When the two met in September, Sheehan was hoping that Sen. Clinton would support her call to bring the troops home. But Sen. Clinton refused to do so, telling the Village Voice: "I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you."

Having highlighted the RNC's misleading implications, it's worth taking a moment to consider why the RNC's political strategy just might make sense for the GOP.

By lumping together several Democrats with different attitudes towards what constitutes the legitimate use of force (i.e., do you pursue a policy of containment and reserve the use of force for imminent threats or do you preemptively try to head off "gathering" threats by force of arms?), the RNC knows that it is making it difficult for the Democrats to provide a check on the current course of the war without exposing the tensions that exist within the Democratic Party.

UPDATE: I did beat Bush's chief Wisconsin flack, Charlie Sykes, but only by half an hour. He's dutifully posted it and is toeing the party line, of course. His post is titled, "Bush Lied?" Yes, Bush lies and Sykes swears to it.

Senate stands up on Iraq policy

We're not there yet, but it's progress. The elected "leaders" are starting to move to get in front of their "followers," but are still behind the public on this issue.

The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 - The Senate signaled its growing unease with the war in Iraq today, voting overwhelmingly to demand regular reports from the White House on the course of the conflict and on the progress that Iraqi forces are making in securing their own country.

The vote, 79 to 19, came on an amendment to a spending bill that ultimately passed without opposition. The bipartisan support for the amendment sponsored by Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who heads the Armed Services Committee, reflected anxiety among Republicans as well as Democrats.

Mr. Warner said afterward that he was "very grateful" for the wide backing of his amendment, which he called "forward looking" and distinctly different from a Democratic alternative that many Republicans said would signal that the United States was ready to "cut and run" from the battlefield.

The message that Iraqis should take from the Senate action, Mr. Warner said, is that "we have stood with you, we have done our part," and now it is time for them to do theirs. He said 2006 would be a pivotal year for the campaign in Iraq.

Minutes before endorsing Mr. Warner's amendment, the Senate voted, 58 to 40, against a measure offered by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, to demand that President Bush set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

"We need to have 2006 be a year of transition," Mr. Levin said as he declared that with his own amendment defeated, he would back the one offered by his Republican colleague. "I support the Warner amendment as the second-best approach," he said.

Both Wisconsin Senators, Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, voted for the Levin amendment, which got 40 votes. Only one Republican, Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, voted in favor. Five Democrats joined with most Republicans in opposing it: Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Bill Nelson of Florida, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Quote, unquote

"While President Bush is entitled to try to defend his record, he is not entitled to his own facts."

-- American Progress Action Center, President Bush Rewrites History.

The fuss about Russ

Clint Hendler on Mother Jones blog:

The Fuss About Russ

I'm scratching my head over this Michael Crowley piece on Russ Feingold's potential as a 2008 Democratic presidential candidate. After laying out a case for why the Wisconsin Senator gets pretty good ratings in, um, Daily Kos polls—turns out the answer is (surprise!) that he supports a fixed exit date to get out of Iraq—Crowley drops this ominous phrase:

But much of what these bloggers know about him is based on his votes on Iraq and the Patriot Act. The rest of his career might surprise them.

Oh no! Do tell us more. What Dairy State secrets lie obscured under the milky waters of Lake Minnetonka? Prince-like puffy-shirts? Cannibalism? A poor golf game? No, the biggest fault Crowley can find is that his colleagues in the Senate just don't like him. As it turns out, when you push for campaign finance reform, forbid your staffers to take trade association freebies, argue against raising congressional salaries, and worry about your party's slide to economic conservatism, well, you just end up making everyone else look bad.

Correct me if I'm wrong, that's exactly the sort of thing that Democratic primary voters—and bloggers—eat up, especially as more and more Dems are calling for the party to take a clear stance against "business as usual" and corruption in Congress. Those stances are his bread and butter. (You may remember a little something called McCain-Feingold, perhaps the most famous senatorial hyphenate of the past decade.)

The only other two objections are pretty silly too. Crowley fears that an opponent might cut and add pointing out that Feingold was among the more post-Monica impeachment-friendly Senators. But I can't imagine any other candidate, come Winter '07, thinking it would be a good idea to refight that decade-old battle. Finally he worries that Feingold's rather consistent stand on deferring to the President's prerogative in Senate confirmations will be a liability. Maybe—but that's precious little to hang 4,000 words on.

Correction: My bad. Lake Minnetonka is one of the thousand un-milky lakes in Minnesota. The mistake stems from thinking Prince hails from Milwaukee.

How to end illegal voting by felons

Here's an easy solution,proposed by a Wisconsin State Journal reader, to the problem of felons voting illegally: Let them vote legally.

I'll second the motion.

Bush fighting for his life on Iraq credibility

--R.J. Matson, New York Observer, via Cagle.

Well, methinks this is highly unusual.

President Bush is fighting for his life on the issue of his credibility on the Iraq war.

After he went on the offensive in a Veterans Day speech,the Washington Post responded with an article knocking down his arguments.

Now the White House has issued a response aimed directly at the Post.

Can't wait for the White House response to today's New York Times editorial, which begins like this:

Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials

To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.

Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.

It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.

This from Sojourners, via Sadie Says:

Walker's deceit and dishonesty speak louder than his promises

"To live outside the law you must be honest," Bob Dylan says.

Scott Walker has turned that around.

He has managed to avoid being charged with breaking the state's Public Records Law while still operating dishonestly, the Journal Sentinel reports.

As background: I have an interest in the case and know some of what transpired firsthand. I am the one who filed a request for some public documents with the Milwaukee County pension office in February 2004, during the last election campaign for County Executive. I was the strategist for Walker's opponent, David Riemer.

I'll get to the details of how Walker's government handled the request. But suffice it to say they did not provide the information I requested and basically put one over on me, the Riemer campaign, and Milwaukee County voters in the process.

The State Dept. of Justice, in a letter to Walker and Riemer, doesn't reach a conclusion over whether Walker broke the law or not. It says that's arguable, but it says this is such a unique case there is no point in taking the matter to court to try to establish a precedent.

DOJ has some harsh words for Walker and his minions, however:

"In sum, this episode evinces a case of how government officials ought not to do business...

"Whether they violated the public records law is a question largely mooted by the later production of the waivers and the nearly inconceivable notion that a repeat of this inglorious set of circumstances might be forestalled by a judicial pronouncement on the matter.

"Nobody honored to serve in public office ought to manipulate public records in this fashion -- that is the opinion of this office."

What DOJ concluded is that it was uncertain whether a court would find that Walker violated the law, even though the investigation found "a troubling course of conduct by county employees." It also concluded that the likelihood of a similar case ever arising again was "nearly inconceivable," so a court decision wouldn't set any valuable precedent.

Here's what happened:

Scott Walker was elected county executive in 2002 after the previous exec, Tom Ament, was caught up in a pension scandal and resigned rather than face a recall. Walker promised to clean up the mess. One of his promises was that he would require every political appointee who worked for him to sign waivers of their rights to the huge pension payouts that were at the heart of the scandal.

When he ran for a full term last year, he ran as someone who had kept all of his promises.

But county employees told the Riemer campaign that wasn't true, and that Walker had allowed many of his appointees to political jobs to continue to work without signing any waivers.

So we asked for the records.

I wrote the letter and asked for copies of all pension waivers that had been signed by county employees since Walker took office.

What I got instead was a list of all county employees who had signed waivers.

It sounds like the same thing, right? It would have been equivalent to what I requested except for the dishonesty and coverup ordered by Scott Walker himself after my request was received.

The DOJ letter to Walker and Riemer, dated Nov. 10 and signed by Assistant Atty. Gen. Monica Burkert Brist, explains what happened:

"The problem lies in the actions of county officials during the ten day period between their receipt of the written request [from me] and the date of their response. After receiving the public records request, the County Human Resources Office notified County Executive Walker or a member of his personal staff. At some point shortly thereafter, it was discovered that numerous county employees had not executed their pension waiver forms and Mr. [Steve] Mokrohisky was personally assigned by County Executive Walker to "clean up" this matter. Mr. Mokrohisky and Mr. Walker readily admitted that this was a matter of some embarrassment to the administration.

"In an effort to get all waivers signed in hurry, employees who had not signed waiver forms were personally visited to obtain signatures and the forms were then filed. Once all the missing waivers were obtained, Mr. [Matthew] Janes {who heads the pension office]issued an updated version of an existing list maintained by the Human Resources staff and provided it to Mr. [Charles] McDowell [director of Human Services] to give to Mr. Christofferson.

"The list did not indicate when [DOJ's emphasis] people had signed the waivers, just the fact that waivers had been filed. By not providing the copies of the waivers themselves, those responding to the request avoided disclosing the fact that numerous employees had not signed them until after the records request came in from the Riemer campaign."

Whether I agreed to the list instead of the waivers themselves is in dispute. Walker's people say I did; I don't believe I did. I distinctly remember being surprised at how small the package of documents was when it arrived in the mail, because I had been expecting copies of waivers, not a list. But that's really neither here nor there.

The indisputable point is that Walker himself ordered his staff to engage in coverup and deception to keep the public -- the voters, since this was in the midst of an election campaign -- from learning the truth. [Dave Umhoefer, a Journal Sentinel reporter, uncovered the truth after the election.]

The disonesty was deliberate. It was calculated. It was wrong. And it was ordered by the guy at the top of the chain of command, Walker himself.

Walker's running for governor now, promising to clean up state government.

That promise is as empty and meaningless as his promise to clean up the pension mess and collect waivers from his appointees. (Even after all of the deception, more than 60 Walker appointees still hadn't signed the waivers, and some received hundreds of thousands of dollars in lump sum pension payouts as a result.)

It's bad enough that Walker breaks his promises. But the deceit, deception and coverup are even worse. They tell you more about Scott Walker than any glib promise. He's a phony, through and through.

He'll claim, I'm sure, that this DOJ finding is just partisan politics, since the AG is a Democrat and he's a Republican. He is fortunate that he won't be telling his story in court.

Hidden costs of hidden guns bill

This from my good buddies the Gun Guys.

You can read the whole item here: The Hidden Costs of Wisconsin’s Concealed Weapons Bill

More wrinkles in the proposed Wisconsin concealed weapons law, which means there are now so many wrinkles in this thing it looks like one of those cute inspirational dogs. Not only will the (fortunately not likely) passage of concealed weapons law cost the state plenty of money in emergency room treatment, court time for determined who shot who, and pamphlets for citizens, but they’ll also have to pay a few extra guards at all the city buildings.

WOW! Rumor turns out to be false!

This from Jessica McBride's blog:

This would be interesting...

A reader emails me:

The Wisconsin Hospital Association really screwed up. The ad they are running on WISN asks people to "thank the governor" for reinstating the med mal caps." Which he hasn't. I think they cut tow [sic]ads and sent the wrong one to the station....WOW

I haven't seen the ad, so I can't vouch for this personally, although it comes from someone whose intellect I respect. Some enterprising reporter should check it out and see if it's true. After all, on Oct. 19, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported:

Madison - A bill to reinstate caps on pain and suffering awards for medical malpractice victims will go before state lawmakers next week, but Gov. Jim Doyle questioned Wednesday whether they were constitutional.

---

WOW! That "would be interesting" if it were true. But it's not. And it wouldn't take too much work for some "enterprising" blogger to check it out, instead of publishing every rumor that comes in e-mail.

One reason she hasn't "seen the ad" is that it's on WISN radio, not television. If you listen to it here, you'll find that it doesn't ask anyone to "thank the governor" for anything. It asks people to call him and ask him to sign the bill.

Quote, unquote

"I have trouble remembering from one day to the next what 'blue' and 'red' mean. They used to call us Democrats 'reds' because they thought we were too liberal, too pink. I’m glad the Republicans have assumed that label now."

-- Former Sen. George McGovern (D-SD), in an interview with Jonathan Singer, on "red" vs. "blue" states.

Hat tip: Political Wire.

--Larry Wright, Detroit News, via Cagle.

Shoot kids, not oxygen tanks

Legislative Republicans seem determined to keep the gun nuts happy this session by passing a concealed carry bill that lets you take a gun most anywhere in Wisconsin.

Last time it came around, the bill was amended so a person couldn't even take a concealed gun into day care centers, hospitals, and other places where you surely need one. Then Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed it anyway. Tarnation!

So far, the bill has cleared both Senate and Assembly committees this time without any amendments, rejecting proposals to keep guns out of day care centers, among other things. Almost the only exceptions the bill allows are for police stations, schools, and taverns. (You have to leave them in your car in the tavern parking lot, which could delay a shooting by a few minutes.) Pistol packing at hospitals, shopping malls, and churches will be OK.

Before the Republican majority on the State Senate Judiciary Committee voted to support the bill last week, State Sen. Carol Roessler, R-Oshkosh, said she plans to introduce an amendment on the Senate floor for the hospitals, who have been lobbying hard for their own exemption. Her rationale was that there are "oxygen tanks and other chemicals" that presumably need protection from stray bullets.

Apparently the patients, visitors and staff -- like those preschoolers, staff and parents at day care centers -- don't need protection. But oxygen tanks do.

Feingold: Best Dem hope or ulcer-maker?

Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold figures prominently in today's discussion of the 2008 presidential race by The Note, from ABC News:

In a possible sign that Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) thinks the way to beat Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in 2008 is by running to her left, he began an op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post with the words: "I was wrong." LINK

"It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake — the men and women of our armed forces and their families — have performed heroically and paid a dear price."

On Oct. 26, his former running mate, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), called for the withdrawal of 20,000 US troops after the Iraqi elections in December.

On Nov. 2, former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle called for removing 80,000 US troops, including all of the Guard and Reserve forces still active in Iraq, following the December elections.

The potential '08er who has led the way in this area, of course, has been Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI).

On August 18, Feingold proposed setting Dec. 31, 2006 as the target date for the withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq.

Feingold spokesman Trevor Miller is now heralding that Tuesday Senate vote on a provision in a Democratic amendment that would direct the President to submit a report to Congress that includes a "campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq" as a sign that Wisconsin's Senator has succeeded in persuading the Senate to break its "taboo" about discussing benchmarks and timelines for completing the mission in Iraq.

Speaking of Feingold, the former Rhodes Scholar got substantial press attention over the weekend.

The New Republic dubs him "The Hillary Slayer" LINK in this week's cover story, and George F. Will wrote on Sunday that if Feingold can avoid the pull of Democratic interest groups, he may face Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008. LINK

(Although Will took some slaps as well.)

But although TNR's Michael Crowley views Feingold as "the best hope that antiwar liberals have," he doesn't seem to think Feingold will actually be the Democratic nominee in 2008. He sees him as more of an "ulcer-maker."

Just when W thought it couldn't get worse...

As my mother used to say, there's always something to take the joy out of life. Our good buddy Bob Novak reports,, and you know he has inside sources.

Immigration may be hot buttonRepublicans shouldn't push

As post-mortems continue on last week's election debacle for the GOP, one issue that continues to be cited as a reason for the Republican loss in the Virginia governor's race is immigration.

To be sure, GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore didn't limit himself to a single issue. He pushed every hot button he could think of. The Washington Post reported:

Kilgore also figured he could ride the old social-issue train to victory in a Southern state. He declared himself "the pro-gun, anti-tax, limited government, anti-illegal immigration, pro-public safety, pro-death penalty, culture-of-life, trust-the-people conservative."

Kilgore's negative ads on television went after his opponent, Tim Kaine, on immigration and the death penalty -- issues that Wisconsin Republicans seem to be getting ready to run on in 2006. They've already proposed a series of anti-immigrant bills and are talking about bringing up the death penalty in the aftermath of the grisly Teresa Halbach-Steven Avery case.

That strategy didn't work too well for Kilgore, according to the Charlottesville Daily Progress:

Many Republicans believe that Kilgore’s excessively harsh attack ads on symbolic social issues such as immigration and the death penalty turned off so many GOP voters that about 60,000 did not vote for the candidate at the top of the ticket but did vote for his two running mates.

Fred Barnes piles on in The Weekly Standard:

I think there are two better explanations for the Republican retreat in the two exurban counties. First, there's the immigration issue. Late in the campaign, Kilgore played up his opposition to government aid for illegal immigrants. He did so in TV ads and speeches, criticizing Kaine for supporting taxpayer-financed services for illegals and their families. The tagline in his TV spots was: "What part of 'illegal' does Tim Kaine not understand?"

. . . The question is whether his emphasis on illegals might have been seen as unfriendly to immigrants, especially by the large immigrant communities in the two counties. An exit poll might have answered this question, but none was conducted.

Nevertheless, Republican consultant Jeffrey Bell insists the immigrant issue hurt Kilgore. Attacks on immigration work in theory but often not in practice. Bell says criticizing illegal immigrants has backfired in every campaign he's familiar with that emphasized the issue. Indeed, the Kilgore campaign was slipping in the polls late in the campaign when he was highlighting the immigrant issue.

The northern Virginia suburbs which have been the focus of much of the analysis have been reliably Republican in the past, but didn't deliver as expected for the GOP this time. One reason the immigration issue didn't work may be that there are a fair number of immigrants living in Virginia, including Latinos and Asians. Wisconsin has growing populations of Latino and Hmong voters who may be turned off to immigrant-bashing as well.

The right wing already started that campaign last May, you may recall, when the Coalition for America's Families ran two television commercials and a radio ad attacking Gov. Jim Doyle over programs that benefit illegal immigrants. The group has taken the links to the ads off its website, but you can find them on WisPolitics Ad Watch, dated May 22 and June 5.

The Republicans seemed hell-bent on using the issue next year in the governor's race and legislative races. But Virginia's result may give them pause. It should.

What's the big deal? Doesn't everybody drink and drive?

My friend Bill Lueders of Isthmus, the Madison alternative weekly, says he can't understand what all the fuss is about his asking Kathleen Falk is she has ever driven a car after drinking.

Here's his rationale for asking, which seems to be the "everybody in Wisconsin drinks and drives, so what's the big deal? First offense isn't even a crime."

Lueders writes:

It surprises me that my question has stirred such a fuss. For the record, in case anyone cares, I like Kathleen Falk and think she'd make a great attorney general. I also like Peg Lautenschlager and think she already is a great attorney general. I haven't heard Falk or anyone else give a good reason that Lautenschlager needs to go, other than that she drove drunk and this will be used against her. It seems to me there is a good deal of hypocrisy in this reaction, given that drinking too much and driving is not an uncommon occurrence in Wisconsin -- heck, for a first offense, it's not even a crime. And what irony there would be if we were to oust a sitting AG on these grounds only to elect another who has engaged in the same behavior but just didn't get caught.

Lautenschlager would not be the first public official, or even the first Wisconsin attorney general,to win an election after a drunk driving conviction. But she would undoubtedly be the first to achieve that after the videotape of her arrest had played repeatedly on statewide television while the story dragged on and on and led to other stories about misuse of the state car assigned to her, which she drove into the ditch.

Bob Kasten, Jerry Kleczka, Bronson LaFollette and any number of state legislators survived DWI arrests. But they all handled them by promptly apologizing and accepting responsibility, putting the stories to rest. Lautenschlager was another story, as this WisPolitics analysis, done at the time, pointed out.

Voter ID would solve one 'problem' -- too many poor and black people voting

Don't stop me if you've heard this before, because it apparently is not as self-evident as some of us might think. As a teacher friend is fond of saying, "Repetition is the mother of learning."

Requiring photo Id cards for Wisconsin voters won't solve any problems, Scott Milfred of the Wisconsin State Journal's editorial page writes in a Sunday column:

In fact, proponents of requiring citizens to show a picture ID at the polls completely ignore Wisconsin's biggest voting problem, which is that not enough people vote. Putting up additional barriers will only deter participation.

That, of course, is the reason Republicans are pushing it -- to reduce the vote in areas which vote for Democrats. The "problem" the GOP wants to "solve" is that too many poor people and black people are voting, especially in Milwaukee. That's what this is all about.

Back to the future

Paul Soglin sees the Bush Veterans Day speech as the likely precursor to another wave of attacks on those who oppose the Iraq war as unpatriotic, pinkos, communist dupes, Reds, or traitors. It would not surprise me. We've all been there before.

-- Tom Toles in the Washington Post

Quote, unquote

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there."

-- Pat Robertson, to residents of a Pennsylvania town that voted out school board members who favored teaching "intellilgent design."

The asterisks in Bush's Iraq arguments

Charlie and Jessica McSykes have spent most of their waking hours the last two weeks writing and talking about an ill-advised asterisk in a Journal Sentinel editorial.

Here are some asterisks you are unlikely to see or hear them discussing:

Analysis
Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

In simple language, Bush wasn't telling the truth.

The rest of the story.

Sensenbrenner caves on budget

F. Jim's voting for the Robin Hood in reverse budget, come hell or high water, he makes clear in a new release. Most likely explanation is that he didn't really care about Arctic drilling, but was objecting on some technical grounds. He never said he didn't support drilling, only that it shouldn't be in the budget bill. But when the GOP calls in the chits, he antes up.

Hard to understand that he doesn't want to take credit for doing anything good for the environment; afraid it will ruin his image, perhaps? He was one of 22 GOPpers who signed the letter that helped get Arctic drilling out of the bill.

If you want to sign a petition thanking the Republicans who did the right thing on this issue, here's the link.

Sticking to the message

Atrios says:

We all joke about Bush giving the same speech over and over, but he really is giving almost the identical speech over and over.

--Mark Streeter, Savannah GA Morning News, via Cagle. (Click on cartoon to enlarge)

When did torture become the American way?

Molly Ivins can be very funny, but she is deadly serious -- and in rare form -- in this column. Torture is no joke.

Some kind of manly
Bush administration, dead to morality, says torture is the American way

AUSTIN, Texas -- I can't get over this feeling of unreality, that I am actually sitting here writing about our country having a gulag of secret prisons in which it tortures people. I have loved America all my life, even though I have often disagreed with the government. But this seems to me so preposterous, so monstrous. My mind is a little bent and my heart is a little broken this morning.

Maybe I should try to get a grip -- after all, it's just this one administration that I had more cause than most to realize was full of inadequate people going in. And even at that, it seems to be mostly Vice President Cheney. And after all, we were badly frightened by 9-11, which was a horrible event. "Only" nine senators voted against the prohibition of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of persons under custody or control the United States." Nine out of 100. Should we be proud? Should we cry?

"We do not torture," said our pitifully inarticulate president, straining through emphasis and repetition to erase the obvious.

A string of prisons in Eastern Europe in which suspects are held and tortured indefinitely, without trial, without lawyers, without the right to confront their accusers, without knowing the evidence or the charges against them, if any. Forever. It's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich." Another secret prison in the midst of a military camp on an island run by an infamous dictator. Prisoner without a name, cell without a number.

Who are we? What have we become? The shining city on a hill, the beacon and bastion of refuge and freedom, a country born amidst the most magnificent ideals of freedom and justice, the greatest political heritage ever given to any people anywhere.

I am baffled by these "arguments": But we're talking about really awful people, cries the harassed press secretary. People like X and Y and Z (after a time, one forgets all the names of the No. 2's after bin Laden we have captured). The SS and the Gestapo and the KVD weren't all that nice, either.

Then I hear the familiar tinniness of the fake machismo I know so well from George W. Bush and all the other frat boys who never went to Vietnam and never got over the guilt.

"Sometimes you gotta play rough," said Dick Cheney. No shit, Dick? Now why don't you tell that to John McCain?

I have known George W. Bush since we were both in high school -- we have dozens of mutual friends. I have written two books about him and so have interviewed many dozens more who know him well in one way or another. Spare me the tough talk. He didn't play football -- he was a cheerleader. "He is really competitive," said one friend. "You wouldn't believe how tough he is on a tennis court!" Just cut the macho crap -- I don't want to hear it.

If you are dead to all sense of morality (please let me not go off on the stinking sanctimony of this crowd), let us still reason together on the famous American common ground of practicality. Torture. Does. Not. Work.

Torture does not work. Ask the United States military. Ask the Israelis.

There seems to be some fantastic scenario floating around -- if Osama bin Laden had an atomic bomb hidden in a locker at Grand Central Station, and it was due to go off in 12 hours, and we had him in prison ... I seem to have missed some important television program on this theme. I am told it was fiction, but it must have been really scary -- it certainly seems to have unbalanced the minds of some of our fellow citizens.

Torture does not work. It is not productive. It does not yield important, timely information. That is in the movies. This is reality.

I grew up with all this pathetic Texas tough: Everybody here knows you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs; and this ain't beanbag; and I'll knock your jaw so far back, you'll scratch your throat with your front teeth; and I'm gonna cloud up and rain all over you; and I'm gonna open me a can of whup-ass ...

And that'll show 'em, won't it? Take some miserable human being alone and helpless in a cell, completely under your control, and torture him. Boy, that is some kind of manly, ain't it?

"The CIA is holding an unknown number of prisoners in secret detention centers abroad. In violation of the Geneva Conventions, it has refused to register those detainees with the International Red Cross or to allow visits by its inspectors. Its prisoners have 'disappeared,' like the victims of some dictatorships." -- The Washington Post.

Why did we bother to beat the Soviet Union if we were just going to become it? Shame. Shame. Shame.

Quote, unquote

"I wish President Bush knew better than to dishonor America's veterans by playing the politics of fear and smear on Veterans Day. Instead of trying to salvage his slumping political fortunes, the commander in chief should honor our men and women in uniform with a clear strategy for success in Iraq... This administration misled a nation into war by cherry-picking intelligence and stretching the truth beyond recognition. . . . Today, they continue the same games hoping Americans forget the mess they made in Iraq that's cost over 2,000 Americans their lives and their failure to find Osama bin Laden."

-- Sen. John Kerry, on Bush Veterans Day attack on war critics.

Bush tries to rewrite history, gag critics

It is George W. Bush's attempt to gag his critics, not their criticism of him, that is un-American, Editor Matt Rothschild of The Progressive writes in an online column. And just who is it that's rewriting the history of how we got into Iraq?

John Nichols, at The Nation online, on Forcing Bush and Senate GOP to honor veterans,

-- Mike Keefe, Denver Post, via Cagle.

This being Veterans Day, and me being a veteran, I think I will take the rest of it off.

Feingold: Too independent for the Dems?

The New Republic has a long, interesting profile on Sen. Russ Feingold.

Once you get past the obligatory question of "Is Feingold the new Howard Dean?" (no, he's not), it gets down to the real question: Is Feingold just to independent (some say quirky; he says principled) to keep the hard core Democrats happy? Could they bring themselves to vote for someone who doesn't toe the party line -- who even voted to confirm John Roberts?

[You might have to register to read it, but it's free. Try the link and see.]

Virginia vote should worry Wisconsin GOP

It wasn't just New Jersey's governor's race that offered some insights about what might happen in Wisconsin in 2006.

Virginia, which has been pretty reliably Republican in recent years, elected a Democrat despite President Bush's efforts on behalf of the loser.

But it wasn't just that the state went Democratic. There are signs that the "Gods, guns and gays" platform that right wing Republicans are relying on in Wisconsin is losing its appeal even in safe Republican bastions.

Columnist Marc Fisher writes in the Washington Post:

Voters to GOP: Virginia's Not Just For Rednecks

Northern Virginians on Tuesday rejected the Republican view of Virginia politics as a simple matter of guns, God and gays.

Loudoun and Prince William voters shocked the state's political establishment by joining with a bracing majority in Fairfax and the reliably liberal residents of Arlington and Alexandria to elect Tim Kaine governor. Their vote was a demand that politicians focus on education, growth and development -- and, to a lesser degree, transportation -- rather than easy, emotional issues Republicans have recently relied on: the death penalty, abortion and gay rights.

This was neither an endorsement of Democratic policies nor a statement of affection for Kaine. Rather, it was a warning to Republicans that lawmakers in Richmond may no longer thumb their noses at the region that is Virginia's economic engine. Tuesday's vote tells Republican legislators it's not okay to rake in tax receipts from the Washington suburbs while gleefully sticking it to Northern Virginia with yahoo measures favoring unlimited growth, unrestricted gun rights and wide-open alcoholic beverage containers in cars.

Four Republican state House candidates who thought it would be clever and popular to insinuate that their opponents were gay or gay-friendly paid a price...

Loudoun is hardly becoming liberal, but voters there easily approved $200 million worth of school and public safety building projects... Loudoun even went for Leslie Byrne, the liberal who lost the lieutenant governor race. Voters at the red-hot core of hypergrowth said they are tired of being played for fools with easy, emotional appeals on the death penalty, illegal immigration and taxes. They want politicians to address the hard questions posed by growth: schools, housing, congestion.

In the state's urban and suburban population centers, Jerry Kilgore's seamy TV spots seeking to paint Kaine as a spineless wuss on the death penalty backfired. With no clear positive message from the GOP candidate for governor, voters saw through the technical beauty of those ads to the root cynicism at their foundation. Yes, negative ads work, but they're less effective where lots of highly educated voters live.

Earlier: Lessons for Wisconsin in NJ governor's race

Judy Miller's Wisconsin connections

At the risk of turning this into a gossip column, this long profile in the Washington Post on Judy Miller (formerly of the New York Times) contains a couple of Wisconsin-related items of which I was unaware:

Ms. Miller started her journalism career in 1973 as the Washington correspondent for the Madison-based Progressive magazine, before being hired by the Times.

The other item is that her "romantic affairs with public officials," which some considered questionable behavior for a journalist, included living with the late Les Aspin, the Wisconsin Congressman who became Secretary of Defense. "Their relationship was well known. They used to entertain friends together," reporter Lynne Duke says.

If you haven't had enough of Judy to last you a long time, Duke's profile is a good read.

Repubs try to duck vote on gas tax

Republicans in the State Senate would rather gas about high gasoline prices than do anything about them, Steve Walters reveals in the Journal Sentinel's Capitol blog.

Wisconsin's gas tax goes up automatically every April 1, tied to inflation. It's a gimmick state legislators dreamed up so they could avoid ever having to vote to raise gas taxes.

Loopy State Sen. Tom Reynolds, R-West Allis, who not only marches to a different drummer but hears different voices in his head, wants to end that automatic increase.

Walter says Reynolds' Republican colleagues are doing everything they can to prevent having to vote. You know that Wisconsin road builders, reliable and generous donors to the Incumbent Party, will be watching.

Your Deity wants to know ...

If you are deeply religious, or have no sense of humor about religion, I'd suggest you skip this questionnaire. For the rest of you, Your Deity wants to know.

F. Jim suburban tour starts today

Here's your chance to speak truth to power. Tell Rep. F. Jim Sensenbrenner whether you think he has been naughty or nice, as he swings through his suburban district. Hed usually seems to get a pass, which just emboldens him to do more bad things in the name of his constituents. A little negativity could be a positive thing.

Friday, November 11: 1 pm, Slinger Village Hall

Saturday, November 12: 9 am, Mequon Public Safety Bldg

Saturday, November 12: 1 pm, Brown Deer Public Library

Sunday, November 13: 7 pm, Pewaukee City Hall

Quote, unquote

"With everyone trying to have an opinion, it's hard to think of anything original to say when you have to wait three days for your column to be published. It's like now we're in a whole nation of opinion writers, so what makes yours special? You have to work even harder."

-- Maureen Dowd on bloggers, in an Austin Chronicle interview.

Lessons for Wisconsin in NJ gov's race

Some lessons from the New Jersey governor's race:

That stem cell research truly is a wedge issue, which the winner, Jon Corzine, successfully used in his television campaign against Doug Forrester -- whose views are remarkably like those of Mark Green.

This Philadelphia Inquirer article makes the point quite well:

Stem-cell research is becoming a political "wedge" issue much like abortion, said David Rebovich, a political-science professor at Rider University in Lawrenceville, N.J.

"Despite the partisan labels, these two guys aren't too distinguishable to the casual political observer," Rebovich said. "Their positions on this issue are so distinct they might motivate unaffiliated voters."

Forrester's position appeals to conservative groups like New Jersey's League of American Families. Executive director John Tomicki condemns Corzine for "running on hope and hype" and accuses him of "speculating" with taxpayers' money.

Some Republican political consultants fear Forrester's position could alienate independent voters, who are traditionally liberal on social issues.

"There's no question in my mind that the majority of New Jersey voters support stem-cell research," said David Murray, a GOP consultant. "The question is whether Corzine decides to exploit this issue on network television."

The answer was yes, and Corzine's TV commercial on the issue threw Forrester into such a tizzy that he reversed his position on the issue in the final days of the campaign. Didn't work. Voters aren't that dumb, and it made them wonder about whether Forrester believed in anything.

StemPAC has more on the race.

The other fallout may be that we will not see any commercials featuring candidates' ex-wives, since Forrester's negative ad against Corzine backfired badly. That must be a relief to at least one Republican statewide candidate in Wisconsin.

Earlier post: Garden State race in 2005 could be prelude to Badger state race in 2006.

--Signe Wilkinson, Philadelphia Daily News (Click on cartoon to enlarge)

Bucher smear makes it clear; He doesn't want Falk as opponent

UPDATE: Jessica is in what she would call an "implied snit" over this post, having totally misinterpreted it. My point was that she obviously wrote it, and the only issue was whether to pretend her husband did or post it on her own blog. It would have been easy to clear up if her blog allowed comments, but she wisely doesn't want to open herself up to feedback.

---

UPDATE 2: Van Hollen doesn't want to run against Falk, either. Now if Van Hollen and Bucher would only tell us what they think about each other.

---

THE ORIGINAL ITEM:
The Bucher family must have had a hard time deciding whether to post this all-out smear attack on the campaign website first, attributing it to Paul, or let his wife, Jessica McBride, claim authorship and post it first on her blog. The technique is familiar; the same kind of broad smears and guilt-by-association she's used on Cindy Sheehan.

They decided to make it a "Note From Paul."

Let there be no doubt: Paul Bucher endorses Peg Lautenschlager to be his opponent. He is scared to death of Kathleen Falk. The good news is he probably doesn't have to worry, because once people start paying attention to his record he is unlikely to be the Republican nominee.

GOP caves on Arctic drilling

Score one, at least temporarily, for the environment.

Two Wisconsin Republicans, Tom Petri and F. Jim Sensenebrenner, were among those who wanted the provision out of the bill.

GOP to Strike Arctic Drilling From House Bill

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 10, 2005; Page A04

House GOP leaders agreed last night to strip plans to permit oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in the offshore continental shelf from a $54 billion budget-cutting measure, probably securing the votes to pass the bill today.

The move is a blow to President Bush, who has made expanded oil exploration a priority since he took office. Lawmakers said the White House applied pressure yesterday to Republicans to save the drilling provisions, especially in Alaska, even wooing conservative Democrats who have steadfastly opposed the GOP budget package.

But the Democrats did not budge, and at least 22 Republicans told the House leadership they would not vote for the sweeping bill unless the drilling provision was removed and they were given assurances that it would not return after House and Senate negotiators hash out a final measure. Even then, several moderate Republicans have said they still would oppose the bill, which would allow states to impose new costs on Medicaid recipients, cut funds for student loans and child support enforcement, trim farm supports, and restrict access to food stamps.

Happy birthday, Marines

The 230th Marine Corps Birthday

By Col. Jeff Bearor (USMC)
Special to World Defense Review

On November 10, Marines around the world pause to celebrate the birthday of our Corps. Some things never change – it's been this way for 230 years.

No matter where Marines are serving, from the Pentagon and Marine Barracks in Washington, to the loneliest outposts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Marines will stop, shake hands, say happy birthday, sing the Marines' Hymn and, if it is available, have a piece of cake. It doesn't matter to us if its an elaborate cake from some big hotel, a smaller cake from the great cooks aboard ship, or a cookie from an MRE, we're going to celebrate!

While the ceremony, the camaraderie, and the opportunity to turn out in your best dress uniform are important to Marines, that isn't why this day is so meaningful to us. Quite simply, it gives us the opportunity to reflect on the debt we who serve today owe our country, our Corps and, especially, to those Marines who served before us and to rededicate ourselves to the Corps and country which "we are proud to serve."

There really is a tie between Marines, our history and our Corps that is, in some sense, mystical. It starts in boot camp and Officer Candidates School with Drill Instructors regaling recruits and officer candidates with the stories that make up our history and with a few chosen stories of their own detailing their small part of the whole. They talk about the first "Continental Marines," the Barbary pirates, Archibald Henderson (who was Commandant for 30-plus years), landings across the globe, the Boxer Rebellion, Dan Daley, the Philippine Insurrection, Smedley Butler, Belleau Wood, "Chesty" Puller, Nicaragua, "Manila" John Basilone, Wake Island, the Montford Point Marines, Iwo Jima, the Chosin Reservoir, Lebanon, Viet Nam and – from their own experience – Kuwait, Somalia, the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Almost magically, the most junior recruits and candidates begin to believe they can be like those heroes and have the opportunity to add to our history. More than that, these newest Marines begin to understand the burden of living up to expectations – the expectation that they will never quit, never give-up on themselves or another Marine, that they'll never leave a fellow Marine behind, and never disgrace the Corps. It may be hokey, but there can be no doubt it works.

From my perspective, as a Marine about to attend his last Birthday Ball in uniform after more than 30 years of service, the Marines of today are more than a match for any group of Marines in our storied history. In fact, I am in awe of the young Marines and officers of today's Corps. These young people (the average age of a new Marine graduating boot camp is just over 19 years) prove themselves each and every day in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and in hundreds of other places Marines serve around the world. They are tremendous leaders dedicated to each other and their mission.

Sergeant Jim Wright, who lost both hands to an RPG in Iraq tells the story of his combat wounds matter-of-factly: As a 22 year-old corporal, his Recon patrol was hit by an IED and ambushed. He was quickly wounded by an RPG, which mangled both his hands and most of an arm and punctured a major artery in his leg. When asked how he avoided going into shock from the loss of blood he said, "Sir, I couldn't go into shock, I was in charge." Sergeant Wright is now an instructor at the Marine Corps Martial Arts Center of Excellence in Quantico. Missing parts of his body is no handicap to this Marine!

There are thousands like him. We are blessed by their service. As a matter of fact, we live in a new time of heroes. These young Marines are smart, fit, dedicated and – when need be – ruthless. "No better friend; no worse enemy than a U.S. Marine" is ingrained in their collective psyche. Our enemies should never, ever underestimate the dedication and fierceness of a 19-year-old American Marine! I am proud to hold the same title – U.S. Marine.

So to every Marine, former Marine, and friends and families of Marines around the world, from an old colonel who loved every minute of the past 30 and one-half years, Happy 230th Birthday, Marines!

— Colonel Jeff Bearor is a career Marine Corps officer who has served as an operations officer with the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. A graduate of Britain's famed Royal Marine Commando course and a recent commanding officer of the Recruit Training Regiment at the U.S. Marine Corp Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., Col. Bearor's most recent assignment has been that of chief of staff, Marine Corps Training and Education Command, Quantico, Virginia. He retires this fall after more than 30 years in the Corps.

'Rent-to-ripoff' bill is bad news

A so-called rent-to-own bill, sometimes referred to as Another Poor People Ripoff Bill, failed to win passage in the State Senate this week on an 18-15 vote. But it isn't dead. It was merely put on hold until its time is ripe -- which will probably come when enough additional campaign contributions have been made.

The bill SB 268, was kept alive by sending it back to the Senate Organizational Committee. That committee, made up of the Senate leadership, could put it back on the calendar at any time.

The bill would loosen regulations for the rent-to-own industry (I'm not sure "industry" is the proper term; "ripoff artists" comes to mind) and could lead to an explosion of as many as 300 of the stores in the state.

In case you're not familiar with the rent-to-own business, it's a business set up to rip off the poor, who cannot afford to buy appliances or furniture outright. Enter rent-to-own, which will let you have your furniture now for a monthly fee, and at the end of your contract, if you make all of your payments on time, you will own it.

Of course, by then you may have paid 10 times as much as the furniture is worth. And in many cases you will end up in default and they'll take it back anyway.

Congresswoman Gwen Moore says it was her personal experience with a rent-to-own company when she was a poor, working single mother that got her into politics. Essence magazine reports:

Congresswoman Gwen Moore's tipping point came when she was a struggling single mother of three living in a low-income neighborhood in Wisconsin. When a guy from the local rent-to-own center came to repossess her washer and dryer--which she paid for three times over because of exorbitant interest rates--the incident angered her enough to make her do something about it. She mobilized her community to march on banks and organized a community-development credit union. Her grassroots activism led to higher political aspirations, including a ten-year stint in the Wisconsin State Senate and two terms in the Wisconsin State Assembly. In January 2005 Moore, a Democrat, was sworn in as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's fourth Congressional District, one of only 20 women of color (out of 435 representatives) serving in the 109th Congress.

In hindsight, the company undoubtedly wishes it had let her keep that washer and dryer.

Sending the bill back to Senate Organization will let the posse of rent-to-own lobbyists get back to work, to try to get two Senators to switch their votes. "This bill is not going to go quietly because there's so much money in this," one Dem staffer told WisPolitics.com.

People in the Capitol were calling it the Ron Brown Re-Election Bill, I'm told. Brown, the Eau Claire Republican who is up for reelection in 2006, is the lead sponsor on the bill, and the only one willing to actually take the floor and speak in favor of it. He was surrounded by a gaggle of lobbyists the day the bill came up.

So keep an eye on this one. If and when it comes back to the floor, let's see where they found the two votes they need for passage -- and what it cost to get it done.

This is sausage-making at its worst. And the smelliest part is what you won't see, when the deals go down in secret.

Bush gives Medal of Freedom to war resister

No, not Cindy Sheehan. Not even David McReynolds or Daniel Berrigan or David Harris.

Paul Soglin has the details on Waxing America.

-- Mike Lester, Rome GA News-Tribune, via Cagle. (Click on cartoon to enlarge.)

This just in: Wisconsin closes its primary

Jessica McBride has an exclusive today, reporting on her blog that Wisconsin has a closed primary election system.

Fighting Bob LaFollette must be spinning in his grave, since 2005 would have been the 100th anniversary of Wisconsin adopting the open primary, which he championed.

In an open primary, voters do not have to register by party or say publicly which party's primary they are voting in. That allows them to vote in whichever primary has the most interesting contests. It does not allow voters to jump back and forth between the parties in the same primary election, however; once you pick which ballot you're voting on, you're limited to helping that party choose its nominees.

A closed primary requires voters to publicly declare their party affiliation before they get a ballot for the party they choose. Wisconsin has never had such a system. And it still doesn't.

The Wisconsin Blue Book has details on page 885.

We have met the Fockers and they are us

This revelation, in a new book about how Britain's Tony Blair was "seduced" by President Bush into supporting the Iraq War, speaks volumes about how we got so far off course.

Their first meeting in Febuary 2001, soon after President Bush took office, was expected to be tense. Blair had a close relationship with President Bill Clinton and many insiders in Blair's office had hoped Al Gore would succeed him.

But, author Christopher Meyer wrote that Blair and Bush seemed to hit if off immediately. And then, the leaders of the Free World relaxed:

That night, the Blairs watched the film "Meet the Parents" with the Bushes. Meyer wrote that Bush "split his sides" laughing when he heard that the character played by actor Ben Stiller was named "Gay Focker."

If you need more, WashPost has details.

Voter fraud hits California

If this had happened in Wisconsin, there would be calls for a federal investigation and several restrictive new laws.

-- Matt Davies for the Journal News via Cagle.

An Xoff Files exclusive:Listening in on the Walker-Green debate

Republican governor hopefuls Scott Walker and Mark Green held their first real debate this week on taxes and spending. It was on a private phone call, but fortunately the CIA, acting under its Patriot Act authority, had tapped it and prepared a transcript, and a White House staffer was more than happy to leak it.

GREEN: Hello, Congressman Green here.

WALKER: Hi, Mark, it's Scott Walker.

GREEN: Good to hear from you, Scooter. How are things in Milwaukee?

WALKER: I've asked you before not to call me Scooter.

GREEN: Sorry, it just slipped out. Hope that doesn't happen in the campaign. What's on your mind?

WALKER: It's the budget reconciliation bill that's up in the House this week.

GREEN: Yeah, pretty cool, huh? We're trying to cut $54-billion dollars from Medicaid, food stamps, child support, student aid, and some of those other wasteful, liberal, bleeding heart programs that are nothing more than social engineering. That'll make sure we have enough money to give that $70 billion in new tax cuts to the rich.

WALKER: Well, I have some concerns about the bill.

GREEN: I do, too. I've been saying that I want to look it over closely to make sure it cuts deep enough before I decide to support it. Great issue, huh?

WALKER: The thing is, the way it stands the bill would cut the money Milwaukee County gets to enforce child support orders. We'd lose more than half of our budget. In 2008 we'd lose something like $9.5-million. That's money we use to collect child support and make sure parents pay to support their kids. We need the money, or more people will end up on welfare.

GREEN: I thought we ended welfare.

WALKER: No, we ended welfare as we know it. But there are still poor people in Milwaukee, and a lot of them end up on some kind of public assistance programs. You should come to Milwaukee sometime and I'll take you on a tour of the central city. One of my staffers knows where it is.

GREEN: Let me get this straight: You're asking me to vote to spend more money? I thought you were the guy who wants to lower taxes.

WALKER: I am, I am. But this is money for a program that actually does some good. For every dollar we spend on enforcement, we collect $6.50 in child support.

GREEN: Why don't you just teach people about personal responsibility and family values? Do they go to church? Didn't they listen to Bill Cosby when he was in town? What about David Clarke? Can't he get 'em to pay up?

WALKER: It's not that simple. We really need that money.

GREEN: The thing is, Scoo-- Scott, it's not free money when you get it from the feds. It's still taxpayers' money, you know. We do print money in Washington, but there are limits. I don't think you want to run for governor as a big spender, do you? You're on Jim Doyle's side on this one. How are you gonna explain that to the Republican primary voters? They're gonna think you're a RINO.

WALKER: Well, you talk about "Wisconsin values" all the time. This cut will just push more people in Milwaukee farther into poverty, you know. That's not a Wisconsin value.

GREEN: Aren't you forgetting that those people don't vote for us anyway?

WALKER: That's right, and if we pass the photo ID law and end same-day registration, they won't vote period. Forget I said anything about this. Just vote your conscience.

GREEN: I'm not sure what you mean by "conscience," but I'll do the right thing -- probably the far right thing.

WALKER: Thanks. See you on the campaign trail.

GREEN: Glad to be of service.

Playing games on medical malpractice

The Republican legislature, acting after the State Supreme Court said state medical malpractice limits were unconstitutional, did what it is best at -- passing another bill that is guaranteed to be vetoed by Gov. Jim Doyle.

Apparently, they want to run against Doyle's vetoes next year, rather than on a record of having cooperated to accomplish something for the people of Wisconsin.

The old limit the court found unconstitutional was $445,755. The bill just passed would raise it all the way to $450,000 for adults. Gee, why go that far? Why not try for $445,775.01? As long as you're playing games, why not go all the way?

Meanwhile, as the media portrays the issue as a battle between doctors and lawyers, here's a reminder that the real winners and losers are insurance companies and victims of malpractice.

Blind pig finds an acorn!

It is a very backhanded compliment from the resurrected and shadowy blogger Dennis York, but since they are few and far between from any source, I'll take what I can get. He pretty much says even a blind pig (like yours truly) finds an acorn once in awhile. The Xoff Spin Cycle.

Congressmen give DeLay $$$ to Katrina aid

Memo to Mark Green and Paul Ryan:

I know you guys have been wanting to somehow rid yourself of the $55,000 in tainted money you received from Tom DeLay's political action committee, but have been hampered by your beliefs that (a) the law wouldn't allow you to return it, or (b )it was already spent.

Good news.

Other Congressmen wanting to shed the DeLay scandal have found a creative way to rid themselves of the money without even having to give it back to DeLay.

USA Today reports:

Lawmakers use campaign cash for hurricane relief

WASHINGTON — More than two dozen members of Congress have found a creative way to raise some quick hurricane relief money — by raiding their own campaign chests...

Though most political donors expect their contributions to help an election, the law allows candidates to use campaign funds for charitable causes and even for other political campaigns, says Sheila Krumholz, research director at the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks money in politics...

Two Republican congressmen who donated from their campaign funds — Reps. Kenny Hulshof of Missouri and Steven LaTourette of Ohio — used their offerings to the Katrina fund headed by former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton as a way to rid themselves of money they had received from Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas.
DeLay stepped down as majority leader after he was indicted for alleged campaign-finance abuses. The former No. 2 House leader has contributed to the campaigns of 256 Republicans since 1989. At least two other House Republicans, Jeb Bradley of New Hampshire and Heather Wilson of New Mexico, have said they would return some or all of their DeLay donations, in their case by giving the money back to DeLay's political action committee.

Angry constituents were calling LaTourette's office about accepting money from DeLay. "People say there's too much money in politics," LaTourette says. "Just giving it back didn't excite me very much, but sending it someplace where it's going to do some good did."

LaTourette says he donated "$16,000 and change," equal to what he received from DeLay since he was first elected in 1994. LaTourette also donated $120 of his own money to hurricane relief.

Hulshof donated $14,500 in DeLay contributions to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund, according to the Associated Press.

It's what the Democrats have been saying all along about getting rid of the DeLay money. When you cut through all of the excuses and rationalizations for keeping it, the bottom line is this: Where there's a will, there's a way.

Dems 2, Repubs 0

Republicans will no doubt say that all politics is local and this means nothing on a national scale. But that's bullshit, of course.

The AP has declared Democrats as the winners of the only two governor's races on the ballot this year, in New Jersey and Virginia. Both were open seats.

If a Republican had won either, Republican radio would be crowing in the morning about the Bush-Republican-conservative resurgence.

Read 'em and weep, Bushies.

Kaine wins Virginia.

AP declares Corzine winner in NJ

This could be a short investigation

I just thought I would pass on this item from Atrios, in case McSykes forgets to share it with you:

Comedy Gold

Sometimes I love Republicans:

Too funny. Hastert and Frist make a big show of calling for an investigation into a leak allegedly affecting national security -- the locations of secret "black site" torture prisons. And then -- BOOM!!! Lott just said, Tuesday afternoon, that he thinks it was a GOP Senator who leaked the info to the Washington Post last week. He says the details had been discussed at a GOP Senators-only meeting last week, and that many of those details made it into the WaPo story.

Money quote from Lott; "We can not remain silent. We have met the enemy, and it is us."All just reported on CNN. We are, folks, witnessing the full-on implosion of the national Republican Party. And not a second too soon.

CNN now. Ed Henry:

Trent Lott stunned reporters by declaring that this subject was actually discussed at a Senate Republican luncheon, Republican senators only, last Tuesday the day before the story ran in the Washington Post. Lott noted that Vice President Cheney was also in the room for that discussion and Lott said point blank "a lot of it came out of that room last Tuesday, pointing to the room where the lunch was held in the capitol." He added of senators "we can't keep our mouths shut." He added about the vice president, "He was up here last week and talked up here in that room right there in a roomful of nothing but senators and every word that was said in there went right to the newspaper." He said he believes when all is said and done it may wind up as an ethics investigation of a Republican senator, maybe a Republican staffer as well. Senator Frist's office not commenting on this development. The Washington Post not commenting either.

This morning on CNN, John McCain said he'd never heard of the "black sites" before the Post story.

---

Earlier breathless report from Drudge:

GOP LEADERS TO LAUNCH NEW 'LEAK' PROBE; INFO TO WASH POST 'DAMAGED NATIONAL SECURITY'
Tue Nov 08 2005 11:36:31 ET

Sources tell Drudge that early this afternoon House Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Frist will announce a bicameral investigation into the leak of classified information to the WASHINGTON POST regarding the “black sites” where high value al Qaeda terrorists are being held and interrogated.

Said one Hill source: “Talk about a leak that damaged national security! How will we ever get our allies to cooperate if they fear that their people will be targeted by al Qaeda.”

According to sources, the WASHINGTON POST story by Dana Priest (Wednesday November 2), revealed highly classified information that has already done significant damage to US efforts in the War on Terror.

Oh, never mind.

Here a gun, there a gun, everywhere a gun, gun

AP reports that the latest version of the concealed gun bill has passed an Assembly committee with no amendments.

The committee made sure you could even take your guns into the day care center.

It also greatly restricts businesses'ability to keep guns out of the hands and cars of their employees. Modine, a Racine-based company, has had some experience with guns in the workplace and is pushing for an amendment, the Journal Times blog reports.

Losing makes the left feel righteous

I wondered in yesterday's post on the Democratic primary for attorney general how some of the same people who thought it was horrific for Kathleen Falk to challenge Peg Lautenschlager could be the same people who are encouraging someone to launch a primary challenge against Gov. Jim Doyle.

One of those who fits that description, John Nichols of the Capital Times, ties it all neatly together in a column today, suggesting that Falk should have run against Doyle instead. He knows, of course, that her chances of beating Doyle would be miniscule while she has at least a 50-50 chance of winning the AG primary. But a Falk-Doyle race would have accomplished everything Nichols wants -- protecting Lautenschlager while damaging Doyle.

[If Nichols got his wish, maybe the Ds could lose both offices. There's something about losing that makes the far left feel they've done the right thing. If you win an election, they figure, you must have sold out. Losing is a sign of purity. The most severe criticism they've made of me as a campaign consultant is that I care too much about winning. Guilty as charged; I thought that was my job.]

Cute idea from Nichols. Luckily, Falk didn't bite.

Now that she's running for AG, Nichols attributes Falk's candidacy to ambition. And what could be worse than an ambitious woman? Ambition is certainly part of it -- saying "ambitious politician" is redundant -- she's running because she doesn't want to see the Dems lose the AG's office and doesn't think Lautenschlager can win in November.

Falk's taking a big personal risk to try to keep a Republican extremist from becoming AG, as she said in her announcement. Nichols says Lautenschlager will be tough to beat in a primary; no argument there. But it should be clear, from yesterday's barrage of anti-Falk negativity from the Republican candidates, that they want to run against Lautenschlager. There's a reason for that. They don't think she can win, either.

Feingold's ideas on Iraq taking root

This tidbit from The Note, by ABC News's political unit:

The Wall Street Journal's Greg Jaffe has U.S. commanders (sounding an awful lot like Sen. Russ Feingold) as they suggest that US troop reductions could "help tamp down the insurgency by persuading fiercely nationalistic Iraqis that the US occupation won't continue indefinitely. These officials argues that the presence of US troops on Iraqi streets has become an irritant."

Feingold, the first to propose a target date for withdrawal of US troops, argues that the US military presence is helping recruit terrorists and weakening our security. For example, on Meet The Press back in August, Feingold said:

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. Let me add also that it helps the Iraqi people feel ownership of this process. It helps the authorities interact, the Iraqis be more credible, because it doesn't look like it's an American dominated operation. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, it helps really take away the ability of these terrorists, al-Zarqawi and others, who say, "Hey, come to Iraq. It's a permanent American occupation." That's how they're recruiting people--and many experts, including military experts, have said that's a good way to get away from that.

The whole story:

Troop-Rotation Plan for Iraq
Could Draw Down U.S. Forces
By GREG JAFFE
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon announced a troop-rotation plan for Iraq that could significantly reduce the number of U.S. forces there over the next 18 months.

Senior defense officials cautioned that the plan didn't amount to a commitment or even a formal blueprint to cut troop strength. Any move to reduce forces will depend on conditions on the ground in Iraq, these officials said.

The Pentagon identified units totaling about 92,000 troops for the next major rotation into Iraq beginning in mid 2006. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking to the Associated Press, said the 92,000 didn't necessarily represent a final figure and that other troops could be added to the rotation plan in coming weeks or months.

The U.S. has about 160,000 troops in Iraq. The additional troops will be in place through the December elections.

The troop-rotation plan, however, is a sign that if Iraqi Army and police forces continue to progress as planned and if security in the country improves, a drawdown in U.S. forces could happen as soon as next year. Along those lines, a Pentagon spokesman described the troop-rotation plan as a "path to decision making," but not necessarily a path to "[troop] reductions."

Mr. Rumsfeld has said repeatedly that the U.S. will only reduce forces if senior generals on the ground in Iraq and the Middle East say that conditions call for a reduction.

Military analysts said there are pressures on the Pentagon to reduce forces. In particular, some analysts worry that the strain on the U.S. Army could become untenable next year if the Army is required to keep current troop levels in Iraq. "The active component and the reserves are about to hit a wall in 2006. [The rotation plan] seems to make a virtue out of necessity," said Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a small but influential defense think tank in Washington.

U.S. commanders also have suggested that U.S. troop reductions could help tamp down the insurgency by persuading fiercely nationalistic Iraqis that the U.S. occupation won't continue indefinitely. These officials argue that the presence of U.S. troops on Iraqi streets has become an irritant.

-- Ed Stein in the Rocky Mountain News via Cagle.

Such a deal ...

The first sentence of the Journal Sentinel's latest "expose" on MMSD:

“After more than a year of painstaking, high-stakes negotiations that included a former governor acting as informal mediator, the sewerage district rejected a low-cost deal that would have wiped clean longstanding charges over sewage dumping.”

About that low cost deal...

Statement issued by MMSD after adopting a 2% increase in the tax levy for next year:

“This budget does not include any funding for projects or penalties that may come out of a lawsuit filed against the District by Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager.

Just one of many items discussed during negotiations with the Attorney General’s office involves installing additional flow monitors within the sewer system, a project that would cost between $20 million to $30 million for the equipment and an additional $1 million a year for monitoring, information analysis, and maintenance.

If MMSD had to include that amount of spending in the budget passed today, the two-percent increase for 2006 would have more than doubled to 5 percent.”

"We’re spending a fortune to improve our system and there are no ‘low cost’ items on the Attorney General’s negotiating table,” said Commission Chair Jeannette Bell, West Allis Mayor.

Proposed constitutional amendment isn't discrimination; it's a hate crime

Anticipating that a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages and civil unions will be on the Wisconsin ballot next year, Action Wisconsin, which will organize to urge a "no" vote, has launched a new informational website.

Gay marriage is already illegal in Wisconsin, so there is no need for a constitutional amendment to do that. But the extremists who are pushing the measure want to take it a step further and ban recognition of any sort of civil unions or domestic partnerships, which are recognized in some instances. The proposed amendment isn't discrimination against gays; state law already discriminates. Adding a constitutional amendment is more in the category of a hate crime.

Republicans are waiting for final passage of the amendment so they can time it for the November ballot, when they think it will get their natural constituency, the yahoos and the wingnuts, out to the polls to bash gays and vote for their fellow Republican gay-haters.

The new website, launched a year to the day before the 2006 vote, features lists of leaders and organizations that publicly oppose the amendment, personal profiles of the people involved, a blog that will chart the campaign, tools for people to inform voters in their communities about the amendment, and background about what the amendment would mean for Wisconsin families.

Check it out at No on the Amendment.

Is Iraq litmus test for Dem '08 candidates?

Is a position on withdrawal of US troops from Iraq becoming a litmus test for Democrats who want to run for president in 2008?

Sen. Russ Feingold was all alone when he proposed a target date of Dec. 31, 2006 to have US troops out, and it has been pretty lonely out there for quite awhile. Feingold, who proposed the target date on Aug. 18, is finally starting to get some company, as polls show the American public wants out.

In recent days, former Sen. Tom Daschle and Sen. John Kerry have both called for troop withdrawals and timelines.

Daschle proposed a phased withdrawal of 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops by the end of 2006, with the remaining 70,000 troops out by December 2007.

Kerry wants 20,000 U.S forces out immediately after the December elections in Iraq, with the "bulk" of American military forces out of the country by the end of 2006.

Chris Cizzilla's blog at the Washington Post has more.

Cheney stands up for torture

Cartoon by Bill Schorr, United Media, via Cagle.

---

What kind of interrogation techniques should be used on Scooter Libby and Karl Rove? Would we get "better" answers if we mistreated them a little? Better yet, if we subjected Cheney to that treatment, we might find out his role in the Plame affair.

The Washington Post reports:

Cheney Fights for Detainee Policy
As Pressure Mounts to Limit Handling Of Terror Suspects, He Holds Hard Line

By Dana Priest and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers

Over the past year, Vice President Cheney has waged an intense and largely unpublicized campaign to stop Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department from imposing more restrictive rules on the handling of terrorist suspects, according to defense, state, intelligence and congressional officials.

Last winter, when Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, began pushing to have the full committee briefed on the CIA's interrogation practices, Cheney called him to the White House to urge that he drop the matter, said three U.S. officials.

In recent months, Cheney has been the force against adding safeguards to the Defense Department's rules on treatment of military prisoners, putting him at odds with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and acting Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England. On a trip to Canada last month, Rice interrupted a packed itinerary to hold a secure video-teleconference with Cheney on detainee policy to make sure no decisions were made without her input.

Just last week, Cheney showed up at a Republican senatorial luncheon to lobby lawmakers for a CIA exemption to an amendment by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that would ban torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. The exemption would cover the CIA's covert "black sites" in several Eastern European democracies and other countries where key al Qaeda captives are being kept.

Separated at birth?

Don't think they look alike? How about this pairing?

No?

Well, except for the gender thing, they are about as close a match as these two.

Don't know who any of them are? Good.

Where are Badgers on budget bill?

It's decision week in the House on a reverse Robin Hood budget bill that takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

President Bush’s allies want to hack $50 billion from Medicaid, food stamps, child support, student aid and other critical services for working families—so they can give $70 billion in new tax cuts to the rich.

Democrats are opposed, and some Rs are having misgivings. Rep. Tom Petri wants the provision allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge out of the bill, the Journal Sentinel reports.

Rep. F. Jim Sensenbrenner isn't saying what he'll do, although he did sign a letter asking that the Arctic drilling provision be removed. He doesn't think it belongs in a budget bill, but that may not be a deal breaker for him

Rep. Paul Ryan has already voted for the plan in the Budget Committee, as Eye On Wisconsin details.

And Rep. Mark Green, the man who would be governor, who says he represents Wisconsin values? He told the Journal Sentinel that he was "reviewing the bill to make sure the spending reductions go far enough." Maybe we could squeeze a little more out of the poor, the elderly, and the children. Wisconsin values my eye!

Meet the new Zogby poll, unreliable as the old Zogby poll

Before anyone gets too elated or alarmed over the latest Zogby poll on the governor's race, which shows Gov. Jim Doyle in a dead heat with either of his Republican opponents, let's do a little reality check.

The numbers are virtually identical to the Zogby poll of a month ago. That should come as no surprise, since Zogby, unlike real polls that use a new randomly selected sample each time, has "regulars" in the sample, which should keep the numbers consistent. It's a poll done online with people who have volunteered to participate.

Last month's poll was quickly discredited when the conservative Wisconsin Policy Research Institute released its own poll, showing Doyle with comfortable leads over both Rep. Mark Green and Milwaukee County Exec Scott Walker. This time, with no independent poll to compare it to, Zogby may be taken as credible. But its numbers are no more reliable now than they were a month ago.

But the Green campaign seized on them again, with his campaign manager saying: “These results reflect the fact that Jim Doyle doesn’t share our Wisconsin values or our priorities." Well, if Green is tied with him, it doesn't look like he shares Wisconsin values or priorities either, does it?

Walker's campaign may be wishing it hadn't trashed the Zogby poll last month, when it showed Green doing slightly better than Walker. Walker campaign manager Bruce Pfaff told WisPolitics.com at the time:

"If Zogby had any credibility or ability to prognosticate, John Kerry would be president today, wouldn't he?" In 2004, Zogby predicted Kerry would beat George W. Bush. Pfaff said the poll consists only of people who have computers and the Internet and sign themselves up on the Zogby site. "Everybody is in the same margin of error," said Pfaff. "So even there what we take from it is people who have Internet connections don't like Jim Doyle."

Well said.

UPDATE: Walker's campaign likes Zogby's numbers better now.

Quote, unquote

“If people don’t want to defend themselves, they deserve to die.”

-- Ted Nugent, quoted by State Sen. Dave Zien at a hearing on his bill to let people carry concealed guns.

Hat tip: The Gun Guys.

Dems should welcome, not attack,Falk's decision to enter AG race

NOTE: I'm updating this throughout the day as there are new developments, rather than posting each as it comes in. That may not be as convenient for readers, but it makes it manageable for me. -- Xoff.

Kathleen Falk makes it official today and becomes a candidate for attorney general.

Her announcement follows a week of some of the hottest Democrat-on-Democrat language Wisconsin has heard in awhile. (I almost wrote that her announcement "ends a week of Democratic infighting about whether she should run." Let's hope it does; she's in now.)

Wisconsin Democrats are usually the party of the Big Primary Tent, where candidates are welcomed even when it would be better for the party to clear the field and settle on the strongest candidate, as Republicans often do.

After Jim Doyle had been running for a year and was building up a head of steam in the 2002 governor's race, I don't recall any Democrats attacking Tom Barrett or Kathleen Falk for deciding to join the race.

When a group of Democratic legislators wrote to Barbara Lawton, to urge her to take on then-State Sen. Kevin Shibilski for lieutenant governor in 2002, Shibilski loyalists didn't go on a public rampage. Many of those who are decrying Falk's move now (including the Capital Times' John Nichols and Fighting Ed Garvey) were leading the cheers for a Lawton candidacy. (Lawton "affirmed her support" for Lautenschlager today.)

But when 10 Dem lawmakers wrote to Falk to urge her to run, some Democrats went nutso.

What makes this different?

I thought that maybe the difference is that Falk wants to take on a Democratic incumbent, AG Peg Lautenschlager.

But that theory falls apart when you consider that many of those complaining the loudest about Falk entering the race are the same people who have been encouraging a primary challenge to Gov. Jim Doyle.

When 10 legislators wrote to Falk to urge her to run, State Rep. Spencer Black had this to say:

...[H]e is supporting Lautenschlager "because she has done a great job as AG. She's a fighter for progressive values - whether it's the environment, fighting crime, or promoting open government. But the one thing she has not done is kowtow to the governor on every issue."

Although they are both Democrats, Lautenschlager and Doyle have feuded over issues ranging from open government to environmental regulation, while Falk has appeared at Doyle's side at several events.

"I think the polls show it's going to be a tough race for attorney general regardless of who the Democratic nominee is," Black said. "A very divisive primary may make it more likely the Republicans will win next November, regardless of who the Democrat ultimately is."

Black, you may recall, is the Democrat who says he is still thinking about challenging Doyle in the primary next year. But none of his arguments apply to himself, apparently.

Even the Capital Times, which loves Lautenschlager and has been negative about Falk's potential candidacy, did concede in an editorial last week that:

Falk has every right to run for attorney general. Indeed, if she thinks she would be a better attorney general than Lautenschlager, she has a responsibility to run.

However, the paper's coverage of Falk's announcement Monday consisted of two negative stories about attacks on her from Lautenschlager and the Republicans, one headlined ("AG rap: Falk's not fit:) with only a couple of sentences from Falk's announcement speech. Fortunately for Falk, only a handful of hard-core Dems still read the paper, as circulation continues its downward spiral.

In an earlier story, the paper found Lautenschlager loyalist Bill Dixon for a quote:

"If Kathleen runs against Peg, Kathleen will lose. It would probably end Kathleen's statewide career, because many of us would be very, very upset with her."

Dixon added that if Lautenschlager is forced to spend her campaign funds on a primary race against Falk, "it's possible we could end up with a right-wing extremist Republican attorney general."

Actually, is is because of the fear that Wisconsin could end up with a right-wing extremist attorney general that other Democrats (including yours truly) have encouraged a Falk candidacy. Lautenschlager's odds of defeating a Republican in November are extremely slim, given her negatives from a drunk driving arrest for which she managed to keep coverage alive for what seemed like months, and subsequent stories about her misuse of a state car, which also was good for quite a series.

Most Wisconsin voters have seen the videotape of her arrest. Those who haven't, or who have forgotten it, can look forward to seeing it again next October if she is the Democratic nominee.

Republicans believe they can beat Lautenschlager and concede that Falk is probably a stronger general election opponent. The Wisconsin State Journal's editorial page editor thinks Rs are licking their chops over the prospect of running against Lautenschlager. "The GOP is so rooting for Peg," he writes. It's clear who Paul Bucher wants to run against, and it's not Falk. In an ill-advised and transparent move to try to help Lautenschlager, Bucher issued a release calling Falk a radical. J.B.Van Hollen seconded the motion, with a release calling Falk "dangerous" to law enforcement. She is dangerouse to Van Hollen's and Bucher's political ambitions. Those two got into the race thinking Lautenschlager was quite beatable; Falk changes the equation.

Jeff Wagner, who ran a losing race for AG against Doyle in 1994, predicts that Lautenschlager could get as little as 40% of the November vote. I don't buy that, but I do think the odds against her winning are long. Wagner, who admits he's straying across the partisan aisle into things he may know little about, also thinks Lautenschlager would beat Falk -- but that Falk probably won't get in the race. He's wrong about the last one, and probably about the other, too.

But it will be a tough, hotly-contested primary, as I said in an earlier analysis. Falk, who has been an assistant attorney general but not a prosecutor, will need to sell her law enforcement credentials to become the top cop. Polls aside, this will be a close race. If Lautenschlager wins it, she will be stronger for having survived the challenge and made her case.

It is worth having this battle between Democrats because the office is important, especially with the legislature in the hands of extremists. Anyone who remembers the Gov. Thompson-AG Doyle years know that having an AG of the opposite party right across the hall can be more than a minor distraction and can cause real problems.

Despite the rancor exhibited last week by some Lautenschlager backers, there is no reason for this to be a negative campaign. Falk and Lautenschlager both have positive cases to make on their own records and their candidacies. Falk's announcement text doesn't even mention Lautenschlager. The Lautenschlager's campaign first response to Falk's candidacy on Sunday threw a couple of jabs. A candidate who starts out attacking her opponent on announcement day for "no experience" shows signs of weakness, especially when that opponent had been an assistant AG for 14 years and executive of the state's second largest county.

A nasty primary campaign could have spillover effects into the general election. Republicans hope there will be a Democratic bloodbath that weakens the primary winner for the November race. But Falk, Barrett and Doyle managed to avoid that in the 2002 governor's primary, and won praise for their conduct. Let's hope Lautenschlager and Falk can do the same and let the two Republican candidates -- who may be lost in the shuffle for awhile -- duke it out.

Libby de-Scootered?

The Libby formerly known as Scooter has a new nickname, one pretty unreliable source reports.

No word on whether Scooter Jensen will start using it, too.

'Conservatives and some blacks' object?

Insight check: What's wrong with this Editor and Publisher headline about a dustup over a Journal Sentinel editorial?

Conservatives, Some Blacks, Outraged Over Milwaukee Paper's Editorial

Well, as near as I can tell, everyone who has howled about the unfortunate (read boneheaded) editorial has been conservative, whether they are black or white. Here's the only black complaint I've seen referenced:

Project 21, which describes itself as the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives, a press release stated that the group condemned the newspaper, saying, "Justice Thomas is not on the Court to represent 'mainstream black America' any more than Justice Antonin Scalia is supposed to stick up for Americans of Italian descent or Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is supposed to be the Court's voice of American Jewry. Is there a mainstream black view on so-called 'right to die' cases? What is the proper Jewish position on the Endangered Species Act's impact on property rights? Who knows? Justice Thomas represents the conservative judicial philosophy of the president who appointed him. So far, he is doing that quite well. If liberals want to affect the philosophical tone of the Supreme Court, they should consider winning the White House."

Saying "conservatives and some blacks" are upset is like saying that "conservatives and Sheriff David Clarke are upset." They are few in number, but there actually are some black conservatives -- Clarence Thomas, for example, who is what the brouhaha is all about. He doesn't deserve an asterisk, as the editorial suggested, but it is indisputable that he is out of the mainstream of black opinion.

How many more?

The Journal Sentinel reports:

Soldier from Hudson killed in Iraq
Army specialist dies in bomb blast with two other American troops

Hudson native Benjamin A. Smith was on his second tour of duty in Iraq and, his father said, enthusiastic to be back.

"Because of the personalities that most of these men are, they don't like sitting around at the fort," James Smith said Friday of the youngest of his three children. "The whole group was anxious to go back to finish the work."

Having returned to the war only recently, Spc. Smith, 21, was among three soldiers killed Wednesday near Baghdad when a bomb exploded near their Humvee, the Pentagon said Friday.

Smith was the 49th Wisconsin member of the military killed in Iraq.

A 2002 graduate of Hudson High School, Smith was assigned to the Army's 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, based at Fort Campbell, Ky.

He was killed alongside 22-year-old Spc. Joshua J. Munger of Maysville, Mo., and 20-year-old Pfc. Tyler R. MacKenzie of Evans, Colo., according to the Pentagon.

During Smith's high school years, he worked as an apprentice welder at Empire Bucket Inc. in Hudson and as a dog handler at the old St. Croix Meadows greyhound park.

"He was a good kid. He was a hard worker. He was a quiet one," said Empire's general manger, Sue Olson. "He was such a skinny kid. The stuff that we work with is so big, and I worry a lot about the younger people."

His father, an engineer, said Benjamin Smith was never daunted.

"He was always looking for a challenge, whether it was well thought out or not," he said.

As a child, he had been active in karate, and in his teens he enjoyed off-road activities, hunting and playing music. He also was active in the Civil Air Patrol.

Benjamin Smith always showed an "aptitude" for the military and enlisted in 2003, his desire fueled in part by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, said his father.

At the rank of specialist, Smith had been trained in, among other things, the operation of a light machine gun and had been a squad leader during patrols in Iraq. His father said he was aware of the dangers facing troops there.

"We talked about it a bit. It's was nothing you could do anything about. Ben was never afraid of anything risky," James Smith said.

Other survivors include a brother, a sister and his mother, Lenore Smith, a quilting instructor.

Plans for a memorial service had not been finalized Friday, his father said.

How far will we go to fight terrorists?Have we become terrorists ourselves?

Please tell me, Owen, that this post at Boots & Sabers is sarcasm. Surely you are not serious? There are no rules of conduct any more? No Geneva Conventions? Is it OK with you if we behead these detainees, whoever they are? Have we become terrorists and torturers ourselves?

The rest of this is from Owen:

CIA Secret Prisons
Personally, I find comfort in this story.

The CIA has operated a secret prison system where more than 100 terror suspects have been locked up since Sept. 11.

The so-called “black sites” — which were so covert that only a handful of government officials even knew about them until today — operated over the past four years in eight different countries,including Thailand, Afghanistan and several Eastern European states, according to a story first reported today in The Washington Post. Former officials say that of the 100 suspected terrorists sent into this secret prison system, 30 are considered major al Qaeda operatives.

Sources say some of the prisoners include Abu Zabaida, who was the head of Osama bin Laden’s operations network, and Ramzi Binalshibh, a key planner in the 9/11 attacks. Both men were captured in Pakistan and taken to a black site in Thailand, then later moved to another location.

It’s nice to see the CIA hard at work protecting our nation.

---

Xoff here again. Here's a perspective from a former CIA analyst. Torture in our name?

Gunslingers ready to break the law?

Steve Walters, on the Journal Sentinel's State Capitol blog reports:

Zien sees potential for 'massive civil disobedience'

State Sen. Dave Zien (R-Eau Claire) says thousands of Wisconsin gun owners tired of being denied the right to defend themselves by carrying concealed weapons are on the verge of strapping on their weapons and openly defying an 1872 state law that makes that illegal.

Opening an 11-hour Capitol public hearing on his controversial concealed weapons law, Zien told lawmakers and TV news cameras that many of his fellow gun owners are thinking about "massive civil disobedience," which could "tie up our courts" by forcing judges and prosecutors to deal with thousands of violations of the concealed weapons ban.

But don't count Zien among those willing to tell police officers, "Yup, that's a gun. Write me up."

"We do not advocate massive civil disobedience," Zien added. "That's not why we're here."

Don't you love the language:

... gun owners tired of being denied the right to defend themselves by carrying concealed weapons ...

That's not a quote from Zien. Those are the reporter's words. The right to defend themselves? From what? When is the last time any of them needed a gun to defend him/herself?

Incidentally, the usual descriptive adjective that precedes the term "civil disobedience" is "non-violent," not "massive."

But when you strap on your pistol and dare someone to arrest you, maybe nonviolence is too much to expect.

[Zien, I am told, keeps a Sten submachine gun in his Capitol office as a conversation piece, but it is either disabled or will only fire blanks. We hope.]

Carter speaks truth to power

"I have a commitment to worship the prince of peace, not the prince of preemptive war." -- Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter, our born again, evangelical Baptist ex-president, minces no words in talking about George W. Bush, who portrays himself as a divinely inspired Man of God.

The quote is from a Craig Gilbert story in today's Journal Sentinel, which does not seem to be online here but must be syndicated somehow, because it's available in other papers like the San Jose Mercury News. Here's the lead (or lede, if you're a newspaper purist):

Washington -- As he promotes his latest book, Jimmy Carter is performing an unusual role for ex-presidents: that of full-throated presidential critic.

"I have been reluctant to publicly castigate an administration, but I think this particular administration has departed from all previous presidents," Carter, 81, told a group of reporters here, part of a series of appearances to publicize his 20th book, called "Our Endangered Values."

Carter says the book is his first "that's ever been designed to criticize an incumbent president." It is a sprawling indictment of the Bush presidency -- over Iraq, torture, taxes and deficits, among other things.

The Georgia Democrat, a born-again Christian, puts at the top of his complaints what he says is a rising "fundamentalism" in politics, "an unprecedented and overt -- not disguised -- merger of the church and the state, of religion and politics."

Carter has some advice for Democrats, too -- like being less aggressive on abortion and finding a way to relate to people who are religious -- something he and Bill Clinton could do, Carter says, but something he suggests John Kerry did not do.

UPDATE: It's now at JS online, too.

Raiders of the Lost Arctic

We are closer than ever before to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, after a 51-48 vote in the Senate this week, Reuters reports.

A report from Grist, the online environmental magazine:

The Rend Is Near
Senate votes to keep Arctic Refuge drilling in budget bill

The campaign to keep oil drills out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has just been dealt what could be a fatal blow. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) introduced an amendment to drop refuge-drilling language from a filibuster-proof federal budget bill; the Senate voted down that amendment, 48 to 51, then passed the budget bill. "This is too important a question to slide into the budget bill," Cantwell said. "We are setting a very,very dangerous precedent."

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is psyched. "America can't afford $3-a-gallon gasoline and we can't afford to depend on sources hostile to the United States," he said, though he failed to explain how drilling in the refuge would solve either problem. The Senate budget bill passed 52-47; the House version, which also includes the drilling language, will be voted on as early as next week. The fate of the final compromise budget bill is unclear.

The House has voted to allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge a handful of times in the last four years, but that was usually with support from moderate Democrats. The current highly controversial budget reconciliation package is expected to get a "no" vote from all House Democrats, and there are 24 House Republicans who've publicly voiced their opposition to the Arctic Refuge provision being included in the budget bill via a letter to Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), chair of the House Resources Committee. "If those 24 GOP representatives stand by their convictions, the House could very well stop the ANWR provision in its tracks," said Moore of the Alaska Wilderness League.

Wisconsin's F. James Sensenbrenner was one of the signers of the letter to Pombo. His objection is to including the controversial issue in the budget bill instead of handling it separately. Whether that is enough to cause him to vote against the entire budget bill is another question.

Want to weigh in with your Congressman on this issue? WISPIRG makes it easy.

Whistling past the graveyard

Conservatives have been whistling a happy tune for the past week.

Happy days are here again, they say: Karl Rove hasn't been indicted yet, Iraq voters approved a constitution, and Bush found a Supreme Court nominee who is more than a sycophant.

The Bushies have turned it around, they say, after a few bad weeks.

How, then, to explain this poll, taken Oct. 31-Nov. 2, which shows W still on the way down, and at a new low:

A new AP-Ipsos poll found the president's approval rating was at 37 percent, compared with 39 percent a month ago. About 59 percent of those surveyed said they disapproved.

The intensity of disapproval is the strongest to date, with 42 percent now saying they "strongly disapprove" of how Bush is handling his job - twice as many as the 20 percent who said they "strongly approve."

This ABC News/Washington Post poll has more bad news: 58% question W's integrity.

Are Wisconsin Rs rallying around DeLay?

House Republicans are divided on the question of whether to let Tom DeLay continue to run things even after theoretically stepping down as leader because of his indictment on money laundering charges, the Washington Post reports:

Although he was forced to relinquish his leadership post Sept. 28, after the first of two indictments for alleged involvement in money laundering related to the 2002 Texas election, DeLay continues to use an office in the leadership suite, occasionally presides over private meetings with committee chairmen and lobbies members during key floor votes.

Also, the Texas Republican's staff continues to maintain the House schedule and dash off memos to lawmakers, ostensibly as employees of a majority leader's office without a full-fledged majority leader...

"My issue is having an indicted former leader hanging around the leadership offices," said one House Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of DeLay's remaining authority. "This guy did so much good work getting us into the majority. Why does he want to stick around? He's not helping us."

"Tom DeLay should not be in a position of authority," said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who called for DeLay's resignation from the House leadership even before he was indicted. "He should not be calling the shots or driving the agenda, and if he is, that would be unfortunate."

Countering those are DeLay's ardent House supporters, dozens of whom now sport hammer-shaped lapel pins evoking DeLay's nickname, "The Hammer," to proclaim their allegiance. They say much of the discord is due to DeLay's departure from the leadership, not his continuing influence.

"This can't go on this way indefinitely," said Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.), a leader of House Republican moderates who wants an election in January to fill DeLay's slot. "We need to get this leadership issue behind us."

We haven't heard a peep about this from the four Wisconsin Republicans in the House. Is Mark Green wearing a Hammer pin in his lapel? Does F. Jim Sensenbrenner want an election to fill DeLay's slot? Where are Paul Ryan and Tom Petri on this? Does the fact that Green and Ryan have taken $55,000 between them from DeLay's political action committee have any bearing on their opinions?

Do you think some enterprising Wisconsin reporter will ever ask any of those questions?

Quote, unquote

"I do like John McCain a great deal. The thought of running against him would not be my idea of an easy task. I'm a big fan. "If he wins the Republican primaries, I think the chances of the Democrats winning the White House that year are going to be pretty thin. I think we all know that."

-- Sen. Russ Feingold, on whether McCain-Feingold could become the presidential race in 2008 instead of the title of a campaign reform bill.

Nelson event reunites 1972 ticket

A Washington memorial service Wednesday for former Wisconsin Gov. and Sen. Gaylord Nelson, who died July 3, brought together many who worked with him or served with him in the Senate. Among the ex-Senators speaking were George McGovern and Tom Eagleton, who for a brief time were the Democratic presidential ticket in 1972.

This may be the first time McGovern and Eagleton have been on the same program since that campaign, when McGovern had to ask Eagleton to step down from the ticket.

Nelson, a close friend of both, played a key role in encoouraging McGovern to pick Eagleton, and then served as a buffer and go-between for his two friends when they were parting ways. He remained close to both of them up until his death.

You'll find a lot more on the subject in Nelson's biography, The Man From Clear Lake, which I can heartily recommend.

UPDATE: Someone actually wrote it:

McGovern and Eagleton joke about '72 race

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- Presidential nominee George McGovern said Wednesday it probably was a mistake to dump running mate Thomas F. Eagleton from the Democratic ticket in 1972.

Eagleton, a Missouri senator, dropped out of the race shortly after the nominating convention after disclosing he had been hospitalized three times for psychiatric treatment, and twice had undergone electroshock therapy for depression.

McGovern replaced him with Sargent Shriver, a former director of the Peace Corps, and lost the election in a landslide to Republican Richard Nixon, the incumbent president.

"Tom and I ran into a little snag back in 1972 that in the light of my much advanced wisdom today, I think was vastly exaggerated," McGovern, a former senator from South Dakota.

McGovern, who spoke at a tribute to the late Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wis., noted that both Nixon and his running mate, Spiro Agnew, resigned before their terms were up.

"So Tom, our timing was off," McGovern said to laughter. "If we'd a run in '74 instead of '72, it would have been a piece of cake."

Eagleton noted that the program for the Gaylord tribute listed the two men as back-to-back speakers.

"McGovern-Eagleton," he said, repeating the phrase twice for emphasis.

It is wonderful, that after 33 years, they can finally acknowledge and joke about it.

Will the real Scooter please stand up?

It turns out that I had it all wrong in dissing Scooters Libby and Jensen in a recent post.

It seems the grand jury indicted a 43-year-old muppet. Details here.

Paul Soglin says Scooter Jensen doesn't want to be called Scooter. It's a name Tommy Thompson's governor's office staffers hung him with when he was the whiz kid chief of staff. They only used it behind his back, of course.

Journalists branch out into politics

During Tommy Thompson's long reign as King of the Badgers, some Democrats used to think that Steve Walters of the Journal Sentinel's Capitol bureau was Tommy's press agent.

But Tommy has moved on to greener pastures, and it looks like Walters has found a new hobby, too -- targeting races for the Republicans.

Walters advises the GOP to go after State Sen. Jon Erpenbach and tie him to Chuck Chvala, who admitted to assigning state Capitol staff to Erpenbach's first campaign in 1998. Even GOP attack dog Rick Graber doesn't think that's a major issue, but Walters seems quite convinced it will work.

Walters is doing targeting and Greg Borowski's doing message. Maybe they should set up shop.

How many more?

The Wisconsin State Journal's Brenda Ingersoll reports:

Soldier was known as a caring man with ready laugh

Fallen soldier Matthew R. Kading, mortally wounded in an Iraq explosion, was "a man of peace" with a ready laugh who loved bowling and baseball, those close to him said Wednesday.

Sgt. 1st Class Kading, 32, a Wisconsin Army Reserve member from Madison, was injured near Tikrit Oct. 19 when an explosive detonated near his vehicle. He died Monday at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, the military said.

Karla Kading, Matthew Kading's mother, said her son was in the army for 14 years, including seven years active duty. During that time, he was able to squeeze in 1 years at Madison Area Technical College, where he was studying to be an electrician. Since the start of the Iraq war, her son served first at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he worked as an electrician, and then in Iraq, mainly at Fort Speicher, she said.

In Iraq, Kading was a platoon sergeant, supervising soldiers whose missions included construction such as carpentry, plumbing and electrical work, Army Reserve spokesman Bill Geddes said.

"His missions were to build up, not to tear down," his mother said. "I had raised him as a pacifist."

"A lot of his efforts were humanitarian," said Rick Roeth, a friend of Kading for 20 years. "He had a great sense of humor. He was a very caring man."

Karla Kading said although she raised her son as a pacifist, "my husband was also in the Army, and between the two of them, he went in (joined up)." Asked what she remembers most about him, she said, "his ready laugh."

She was able to talk with him only infrequently, she said. "We e-mailed often. He was a man of peace and very few words . . . He wasn't free to talk about much, but his longing to be home and with us" came through in his e-mails, she said.

Kading was deployed to Iraq Oct. 27, 2004. Deployments to Iraq often are for one year, but it was not known when Kading was due to return home, said Geddes. Kading was assigned to the Army Reserve's 983rd Engineer Battalion, based in Monclova, Ohio.

Falk v. Lautenschlager could be hot race

It appears that Kathleen Falk, the Dane County exec, is on her way toward entering the race for attorney general. A "draft" movement by 10 Democrats in the Assembly is the first sign that she's probably made a decision.

If she does jump in -- and I think she will -- it will come as a relief to many Dems who supported AG Peg Lautenschlager in 2002 but believe she has too much negative baggage to win the general election in 2006.

Lautenschlager has given no indication she would even consider getting out of the race. That sets the stage for hotly contested primaries in both parties next September -- Lautenschlager-Falk and the Republican Paul Bucher-J. B.Van Hollen matchup. [The Rs are currently at the level of arguing over who has the endorsement of the Florence County DA.]

Some of the people agitating for a Falk candidacy mistakenly think the primary will be easy for her. In fact, it will be a very tough race -- but a winnable one if she runs a good campaign, which she is capable of doing.

Lautenschlager is the incumbent, though, and in a Democratic primary will have some hard-core loyalists and some immeasurable sympathy vote because of her battle with cancer. Even her drunk driving arrest may get her some sympathy from Dems who believe she was treated too harshly by the media.

Lautenschlager's campaign says its polling shows her with a solid lead over Falk in the primary, at 39%-27% among "Democratic primary voters" and 43%-29% among self-identified Democrats. Her poll was done mid-October, post-Vang murder trial, by Garin Hart Yang.

What's hard to decipher is how the sample found 286 "Democratic primary voters" in a total sample of 504, when only 192 identified themselves as Dems. Apparently anyone who didn't self-identify as a Republican was asked what primary he/she usually vote in, and 80% said the Democratic primary. It's true we have crossover voting in Wisconsin, but the Republican ballot will be the hot ticket item, with primaries for both gov and AG. That makes those numbers somewhat suspect.

In any event, Lautenschlager's people say she's sitting pretty in the primary, even after they tell people about her DUI, abuse of her state car, and other negatives. (They also told people Lautenschlager's positives, and that Falk has never been a prosecutor, which is a hurdle for someone who wants to be AG.) Lautenschlager's people say her lead increased after that, but wouldn't provide the numbers.

They also say she runs better against the Republicans than Falk does, although other polls have said just the opposite. (WisPolitics poll and Bucher poll.)

Falk undoubtedly has done her own poll and found a different, more encouraging set of numbers. But if she has those numbers, she is wisely using them for internal strategic purposes, not to spin the media. Background: Beware of candidates bearing polls.

She's run statewide, for governor in 2002, and knows what it takes. She also knows that most of the positive exposure has dissipated over three years, and that she will have to re-introduce herself to voters. And she knows it's a risk to run.

The only guarantee in politics is that there is no sure thing.

If Falk gets in, Democrats are likely to see a very competitive race for their party's nomination.

I continue to believe that if Falk wins the primary she will be the stronger candidate in November. The primary could be the tougher test. One good thing -- the Republican nominee will be as broke and exhausted the day after the primary as the Democratic winner. Then it's an eight-week sprint.

Six-gun law in the Capitol?

Well, here's a new perspective. Let people carry guns everywhere, because you never know when you'll need one.

The Capital Times reports:

Don't limit concealed guns, Texas lawmaker says here
Wisconsin lawmakers should not declare most public places off-limits to individuals carrying concealed guns, a Texas lawmaker and gun advocate said today.

"When you carve places out, you're telling a gunman where they can go to kill people like fish in a barrel," Texas Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp told a joint legislative hearing this morning.

Hupp, who decided to run for office after her parents were killed in 1991 in Killeen, Texas, in the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, said it would be a mistake to ban the carrying of concealed weapons from government buildings, schools, hospitals and other publicly owned facilities.

"If it is a place where we as citizens have to enter, (carrying concealed weapons) should be allowed," she said.

Hupp noted that a principal was able to stop a school shooting outside Little Rock only after he retrieved a handgun from his car - which was technically illegal.

And she noted that concealed guns are allowed in the Texas Capitol "because we didn't want to be hypocrites about this."

Concealed guns in the State Capitol? On the floor of the Senate and Assembly? Could legislators keep them in their desks? (There are any number of leggies who shouldn't even be allowed to have anything sharp, let alone a loaded gun.)

This has some real possibilities. We've all seen or read about temper tantrums, screaming matches and rage during Capitol debates. The only thing that could liven things up would be if the participants were armed.

What are we waiting for? Six-gun law, here we come. Maybe it'll increase viewership on Wisconsin Eye, the state's version of C-Span, too.

Sensenbrenner pushes death penalty

Ask yourself, as you read this NY Times editorial, why a Congressman from Wisconsin, which abolished the death penalty in 1853, would be leading the charge to expand the death penalty and make it easier to execute people under the Patriot Act:

The House's Abuse of Patriotism

In the national anguish after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress rushed to enact a formidable antiterrorism law - the Patriot Act - that significantly crimped civil liberties by expanding law enforcement's power to use wiretaps, search warrants and other surveillance techniques, often under the cloak of secrecy. There was virtually no public debate before these major changes to the nation's legal system were put into effect.

Now, with some of the act's most sweeping powers set to expire at the end of the year, the two houses of Congress face crucial negotiations, which will also take place out of public view, on their differences over how to extend and amend the law. That's controversy enough. But the increasingly out-of-control House of Representatives has made the threat to our system of justice even greater by inserting a raft of provisions to enlarge the scope of the federal death penalty.

In a breathtaking afterthought at the close of debate, the House voted to triple the number of terrorism-related crimes carrying the death penalty. The House also voted to allow judges to reduce the size of juries that decide on executions, and even to permit prosecutors to try repeatedly for a death sentence when a hung jury fails to vote for death.

The radical amendment was slapped through by the Republican leadership without serious debate. The Justice Department has endorsed the House measure, and Representative James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Judiciary Committee chairman, who is ever on the side of more government power over the individual, is promising to fight hard for the death penalty provisions.

There are now 20 terrorism-related crimes eligible for capital punishment, and the House measure would add 41 more. These would make it easier for prosecutors to win a death sentence in cases where a defendant had no intent to kill - for example, if a defendant gave financial support to an umbrella organization without realizing that some of its adherents might eventually commit violence.

Any move to weaken the American jury system in the name of fighting terrorism is particularly egregious. But the House voted to allow a federal trial to have fewer than 12 jurors if the judge finds "good cause" to do so, even if the defense objects. Under current law, a life sentence is automatically ordered when juries become hung on deciding the capital punishment question. But the House would have a prosecutor try again - a license for jury-shopping for death - even though federal juries already exclude opponents of capital punishment.

The House's simplistic vote for another "crackdown" gesture can only further sully the notion of patriotism in a renewed Patriot Act.

Eye on Wisconsin asks: Is this doll pro-choice?

Earlier Xoff post: Feminists' sneak attack on the nursery.

Assembly Dems urge Falk to run

Ten Assembly Democrats, including their top two leaders, have written to urge Dane County Exec Kathleen Falk to run for attorney general. Journal Sentinel story.

Besides State Reps. Jim Kreuser and Jon Richards, the minority leader and assistant minority leader, signers include Mark Pocan, Tamara Grigsby, Sandy Pope-Roberts, Jason Fields,Pedro Colon, Fred Kessler, Chris Sinicki, and Gary Sherman.

In the letter, the 10 say they believe Falk would be a strong candidate but do not mention the incumbent, Peg Lautenschlager. In the newspaper story, Pocan says they doubt Lautenschlager is electable.

The last time a group of legislators signed a letter like that it was 2002 and they were urging Barbara Lawton to enter the race for lieutenant governor against then-State Sen. Kevin Shibilski. Pocan was in the forefront of that effort, which resulted in Lawton running, winning the Dem primary, and being elected LG.

There are almost no genuine "drafts" in politics, and this isn't likely to be one, either. Odds are they are urging Falk to run with at least her tacit blessing.

Let's ask Alito about voter IDs

Maybe Sens. Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl should be asking justice nominee Samuel Alito his views on the constitutionality of requiring voters to have government-issued photo ID cards.

We seem headed, some years down the road, toward a Supreme Court decision on Wisconsin's requirement.

The Assembly Tuesday passed a constitutional amendment to require photo IDs, despite a warning from the ACLU that it is probably unconstitutional. (The ACLU knows a little something about the subject, having just gotten a court order to stop a similar law from taking effect in Georgia.

Republicans, whose transparent goal is to reduce the Democratic vote, claim it's the will of the people to require photo IDs, citing public opinion polls which are duly noted in news coverage of the Assembly vote.

But majority rule doesn't apply when the the constitution is at stake. That's why we have a judiciary and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.

Tuesday's action was just a vote by the first house of the legislature. It needs State Senate approval this session, and then must pass both houses again next session before going to the voters for a statewide referendum. The soonest that could happen is spring of 2007. If it passes, it is no doubt headed for the courts, and, not inconceivably, the Supremes.

Tommy, GOP invented 'Pay to Play'

Mike Ivey's column in the Capital Times nails it:

What a tremendous oversight to let the great Capitol Corruption Scandal pass without honoring the man who really introduced big money politics to Wisconsin: Tommy G. Thompson.

While liberal Democrats Chuck Chavla and Brian Burke were the first to take the fall - pleading guilty to using their legislative power positions to solicit campaign funds - it was Thompson and the Republicans who created the "Pay to Play" system still in effect today.

When Thompson was first elected governor in 1986, he and incumbent Tony Earl spent a combined $2.7 million on the campaign. Today, it's estimated $40 million will be spent by all parties involved once the dust clears here in the 2006 governor's race.

And when it came to shaking down business leaders for campaign cash, nobody did it like the Thompson crew.

Thompson mastermind Jim Klauser and wunderkind Nick Hurtgen understood early the connection between business and politics. From road builders seeking highway expansion jobs to Wall Street firms looking to underwrite bond deals, the rules were well known: If you want to sit at the table, better bring something for the guy hosting the party.

Earlier post: Fundraising scandal recalls the good old days.

Colorado voters suspend TABOR

One more piece of evidence for Wisconsin supporters of the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, that this is not a simple, slam dunk issue. So far, Wisconsin Republicans who support the concept have not even been able to agree on a proposal, let alone pass one.

Today's news is a serious setback to their efforts to sell the TABOR snake oil. The first customers to buy it have returned it for a refund. Already there is talk of the likely impact on other states considering similar measures.

Colorado, the first state to adopt TABOR, has become the first state to reject it. The AP reports:

Colo. Voters Suspend Taxpayer Rights Bill

DENVER -- Colorado residents have voted to suspend their Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, the strictest government spending limit in the nation, and give up more than $3 billion in tax refunds to help the state bounce back from a recession.

Fiscal conservatives were dismayed at the outcome Tuesday night and worried about its impact on other states considering similar spending limits.

But supporters said Colorado couldn't afford to vote no, not with higher education, health care and transportation already suffering from millions of dollars in budget cuts.

"It means we can join 49 other states recovering from the recession, we can make up some of the cuts," said Republican Gov. Bill Owens, who stunned his own party by joining Democrats in crafting the ballot measure.

The Rocky Mountain News offers a list of winners and losers. Among the losers:

Grover Norquist, Dick Armey and other national leaders in the "drown government in a bathtub" movement who focused their efforts on making Colorado's TABOR a model of fiscal restraint.

An earlier story, before the vote, from the LA Times:

CALIFORNIA
Would State Budget Cap Pinch Like Colorado's?

LOVELAND, Colo. — The scene may seem familiar to Californians: a Republican governor warning that fiscal meltdown is imminent unless voters approve new rules on how much money the state can spend each year.

But Colorado Gov. Bill Owens isn't looking for the kind of budget cap that California Republicans want voters to approve. That was imposed 13 years ago.

Now he is pleading with voters to lift it.

The problem: Colorado's spending controls appear to have worked too well. Now some of the most strident fiscal conservatives in Colorado — long viewed as a model for others considering such restraints — say the cap has strangled government. There is talk of closing community colleges, privatizing the university system, releasing inmates early.

Owens said he never saw it coming.

TABOR VIDEO. Want to know more about Colorado's experience? Here's a video from the Oregon Center for Public Policy. It's 13 minutes and filled with information about what happened in Colorado.

'Give us the privacy to discriminate'

Patrick McIlheran, the Journal Sentinel's local conservative columnist, offers his assessment of the right to privacy:

Before privacy got drafted into the Abortion Liberation Army, it was an unstated premise in American life. How little markup a store is willing to earn to undercut competitors? Surely that's a private matter. Whether you rent an apartment to a couple shacking up or not: That, too, is your private business, as is whether your motives constitute a hate crime. Your house is private property, and surely any privacy right worth the name would protect you from having it turned into high-end condos by the city.

So privacy, it appears, is tied to property ownership and overrides all other rights.

If you choose not to rent to an unmarried couple (I hadn't heard the rather quaint "shacking up" for awhile), he says, that's your private business. You own the house, right?

So if you won't rent to a gay couple, is that your private business, too. [We know they aren't married, because you support laws that forbid it.]

A black family? A Hmong couple, married or not?

(Do you ask them all their relationships when they look at the apartment, to determine whether they are married, whether the two guys are gay or just friends, or do you just jump to your own conclusions?)

And don't give us any of that discrimination or hate crime stuff. You own the house, so everyone should leave you alone and give you some privacy.

Excuse me, Patrick, but this is 2005, not 1905. Women teachers are even allowed to marry now without losing their jobs. Society has become a little more tolerant, although that seems to have escaped your notice.

The privacy I want is privacy from government intruding and snooping into my life, reading my mail and e-mail, finding what library books I read, searching my bank records and generally prying into my life even though I am not suspected of anything. Government, of course, has much more latitude to snoop and spy on us since passage of the Patriot Act, which you undoubtedly support.

That's the privacy I'd like protected -- the privacy to lead my own life without the government spying on me -- not the right to privately discriminate because I happen to be a property owner.

Scott Walker's empty gesture

Milwaukee County Exec Scott Walker tries to get some political benefit out of the passing of Rosa Parks, announcing that he will honor her by putting a sticker on the front seat of every county transit bus today, the day she is buried.

"This seat is dedicated to Rosa Parks," the stickers will say.

I suspect that Rosa Parks would prefer some other action from Scott Walker to pay tribute to her -- something less symbolic and more real.

For starters, Walker could quit jacking up bus fares for people who rely on the bus as their primary means of transporation. He proposed a 23% fare hike for regular riders in this year's budget, following fare increases and route cuts last year.

Under Walker the bus system, once one of the nation's best, will soon be in a death spiral. Higher fares and fewer routes result in lower ridership, which become the justification for more service cuts and fare hikes.

Rosa Parks would not be pleased with Scott Walker's moves to make it harder for the working poor to get to their jobs.

Nor would she be pleased with Walker's efforts to make it harder for minorities and the poor to vote, by proposing a series of "reforms" intended to keep them away from the polls.

In light of those actions, Walker's gesture of putting a few stickers on some bus seats for a day rings hollow. Rosa Parks would tell him that, if she could.

All in the family

Great news that new Waukesha Exec Dan Vrakas has named Jenifer Finley his chief of staff. Many were afraid there wouldn't be a Finley family member on the county payroll for the first time since 1984, when Dan Finley joined the County Board. He went on to become County Board chair and the county's first exec, serving 14 years. Jenifer, who briefly thought about running for exec herself, starts at $73K.

What, no free tickets?

GOP CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR STOPS IN WAUSAU

Monday, Oct 31, 2005,
WAOW–Ch. 9 TV–Wausau

MILWAUKEE COUNTY EXECUTIVE SCOTT WALKER STOPPED BY CHANNEL NINE TODAY TO EXPLAIN WHY HE SHOULD BE THE NEXT WISCONSIN GOVERNOR. [More accurately, why HE THINKS he should be governor.]

THE REPUBLICAN POLITICIAN HAS HELD HIS SPOT IN MILWAUKEE FOR FOUR YEARS. [Actually, three and a half, but it seems like longer.]

HE SAYS LEADING ALMOST ONE MILLION CONSTITUENTS HAS GIVEN HIM EXPERIENCE FOR THE JOB. [That makes Doyle 5 times as qualified, having led 5 million.]

"AND ALL THINGS I DO ARE JUST LIKE THE GOVERNOR. I'VE GOT A CABINET, I PRESENT A BUDGET, I HAVE VETOES, I DEAL WITH ALL THE SAME ISSUES THE GOVERNOR DOES. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JIM DOYLE, AND I IS, I TOLD THE VOTERS WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO AND I'VE DONE EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS I SAID I WAS GOING TO DO." [Actually, he's broken almost every promise or faked it, but that's another story.]

HE SAYS HIS BIGGEST ISSUES ARE TAXES AND TRUST. [He trusts that he won't be around when taxes go up because of some of his voodoo budgeting.]

SPECIFICALLY, WALKER SAYS HE'LL WORK FOR LOWER TAXES AND KEEP PROMISES WHILE IN OFFICE. [And when taxes aren't lower, and he doesn't keep his promises, there's one thing you can count on -- He'll blame someone else.]

Coverup worked; Bush reelected

E. J. Dionne Jr. in today's Washington Post column:

Has anyone noticed that the coverup worked?

In his impressive presentation of the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby last week, Patrick Fitzgerald expressed the wish that witnesses had testified when subpoenas were issued in August 2004, and "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."

Note the significance of the two dates: October 2004, before President Bush was reelected, and October 2005, after the president was reelected. Those dates make clear why Libby threw sand in the eyes of prosecutors, in the special counsel's apt metaphor, and helped drag out the investigation.

Daily Kos has more.

Iraq death toll is page 9 news in Milwaukee

When the death toll of American service members in Iraq reached 2,000 last week, the nation's' newspapers gave the story prominent play, despite the Pentagon's attempts to downplay it, the NY Times reports. In most papers, like the Omaha World Herald, at right,it was a page one story.

But not in Milwaukee, where it was back on page 9. Bruce Murphy of Milwaukee Magazine writes:

MJS Downplays Iraq Again

It was front-page news in major newspapers Thursday that 2,000 Americans have now been killed in Iraq. The Journal Sentinel, however, put good news about the Iraq constitution on page one that day and buried the 2,000 deaths milestone on page nine.

The United States has been averaging about 17 deaths per week. The New York Times did a short profile of all 2,000 people killed, which includes 47 from Wisconsin. We’ve suffered a higher percentage of deaths per total population than many states.

Murders and war casualties are high-drama subjects that can sell newspapers. Many readers, whatever their stand on the war, would be interested in those Wisconsinites who have given their lives in this conflict. Few, by contrast, are likely to care about the nuances of a foreign constitution. So what explains this news judgment by JS editors?

On Sunday, JS Editorial Page Editor O. Ricardo Pimentel wrote a long column explaining how the paper editorialized regarding the now-invalidated justifications for invading Iraq. It was an odd performance, given that these editorials were written under Pimentel’s predecessor, Mike Ruby. Ruby struck me as a moderate conservative, while Pimentel is a liberal. Yet here was Pimentel doing his best to justify the past editorials, under the headline “Our editorials repeated what we now know to be wrong.”

Of course, the JS editorial page was no more wrong than others across America. We now know that New York Times reporter Judith Miller was way too close to Bush administration neoconservatives and eagerly reported some of their inaccurate claims justifying the Iraq invasion. The Times, in fact, ran a huge correction for how it covered the rationale for invading Iraq. But that mistake didn’t just affect readers of The Times. Its impact was huge, because most newspapers, including the Journal Sentinel, rely on The Times for much of their national and international coverage.

You could hardly expect the Journal Sentinel to apologize for the inaccuracy of syndicated coverage it published on Iraq. But at what point will it decide to serve readers and stop downplaying the bad news on the war?

Jefferson Wal-Mart headed to court?

It looks like the battle over a proposed Wal-Mart superstore in Jefferson is headed the way of all disputes these days -- to court.

Earlier post: In Jefferson, war over Wal-Mart continues.

Nationally, Wal-Mart is under fire so much these days that it has set up a war room modeled after political campaigns, the NY Times reports.

Fundraising 'scandal' recalls good old days

Gosh, what next? Now someone who works for the governor held a fundraiser for him, and some people who do business with the state came and made contributions? It must be pretty scandalous, because it made the front page.

The goo-goos, of course, are outraged.

State Dem Chair Joe Wineke did manage to shame the newspaper into reporting that Doyle's opponents, Scott Walker and Mark Green, have records of raising money from special interests who want favors:

Wineke said Green, for example, accepted $54,000 from drug manufacturers after he cast a key vote on the Medicare reforms that will begin to provide drug coverage to the nation's elderly, and Walker benefited from a fund-raising event hosted by former state official and investment banker Nick Hurtgen, who is now fighting federal corruption charges in Chicago. {The story neglected to mention Hurtgen's connections to Bear, Stearn, which was awarded huge underwriting contracts by Walker's government.]

It kind of makes you wish for the good old days, when Tommy Thompson was the governor, and things were simpler. You'd never see anyone who did any business with state government who wasn't sporting a $500 "Governor's Club" lapel pin.

Jim Klauser, secretary of administration, who was known as the Deputy Governor, oversaw the campaign, including its fundraising, and DOA awarded many of the state contracts for services. Klauser's wife was Tommy's campaign treasurer, processed the checks, and filed the finance reports.

Tommy, of course, insisted he never knew who contributed and paid no attention.

I recall in 1990 when Tom Loftus' campaign did the research to identify something like $800,000 in contributions to Thompson from people associated with would-be dog tracks in the state.

The state was in the process of deciding which tracks would be licensed, and at the time (before tribal casinos), everyone thought a dog track license was a license to print money. Thompson's campaign shook down everyone from investors in the projects to the people who would build them, blacktop the parking lots, and sell the hot dogs.

The Loftus campaign did the research and presented it to the Journal Sentinel, which spent a couple of weeks or more checking it out and finally ran a story. As I recall, it was a one-day story, while Tommy continued to amass millions from vendors doing business with the state of Wisconsin.

Do I think there's too much special interest money in politics? Absolutely. But if the same standard is applied to all candidates -- which would mean the newspaper plans a front page story every time any political candidate has an innocent event like the Doyle event in Saturday's story -- there won't be room for anything else.

Quote, unquote

"The CIA complains a US ban on “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” of terrorist suspects would bar some techniques it uses in interrogations overseas. It would also bar some techniques used in Catholic grade school. "

-- Will Durst, The Progressive.

Right wing defends Joe McCarthy

The right wing is coming to the defense of our own Tailgunner Joe McCarthy, whom they say has been unfairly attacked in the movie about Edward R. Murrow, "Good Night and Good Luck." The Media Citizen blog has details. They're after George Clooney, too, who directed and acts in the film and has dared to criticize Fox News, among other things.

Expect Sykes and McBride to join the chorus soon, since both are practitioners of the tailgunner's tactics -- as in their smears of Cindy Sheehan, for example.

Does it seem at all ironic that a movie about McCarthy is generating this kind of response?

UPDATE: The AP reports: "The truth of Murrow and McCarthy is beyond black and white."

Victims forgotten in medical cap battle

Finally, someone makes the obvious point that all of the hoo-hah over medical malpractice award caps is more than a fight between the doctors and the lawyers, which is how it's usually portrayed. It's actually about the victims who may be damaged for life, or lose their lives, because of malpractice, and the insurance companies who don't want to pay them.

Janice Eisen, a citizen columnist for the Journal Sentinel, explains in her op ed column.