Milwaukee County Sheriff, the folkbum endorsement: Don Holt

I had an opportunity to meet and talk with Don Holt at, believe it or not, a Drinking Liberally a few weeks ago. He is everything current Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke is not.

• David Clarke is a Republican but won't admit to it. Don Holt is proud of his party affiliation.
  
• David Clarke has a checkered career (to put it mildly) in law enforcement. Don Holt has a stellar record.
  
• David Clarke sees the office of Sheriff as some kind of stepping stone to bigger and better things. Don Holt is coming out of retirement because he sees what a mess Clarke and his ambition have made.
  
• David Clarke has mismanaged everything from booking at the county jail to patrols on county roads and highways. Don Holt earned repeated praise for his management of the Highway Patrol District 2.
  
• David Clarke talks tough but hasn't delivered a safer Milwaukee County. Don Holt walks quietly but has a record of accomplishment.
  
• David Clarke irritates other law enforcement agencies in the county. Don Holt has a long record of cooperation and accord with other agencies.
  
• David Clarke serves beer in uniform and uses County resources as he campaigns (and even the Republicans among us know that's wrong. Don Holt got into the race partly because those abuses appall him.
  
• David Clarke was cited for contempt of court for over 16,000 violations. Don Holt wasn't.

You get the idea. It's hard to do this, you know, endorse a Republican. But, as with the guys over at Watchdog Milwaukee, I can't in good conscience vote for Clarke. It's not just that I feel if I'm going to vote for a Republican, I may as well vote for an honest one--though I do feel that way.

It's that David Clarke, and his legions of supporters in this race, online and on the radio, are exactly what's wrong with the Republican Party. Clarke talks a big game, struts around in his uniform and poses for the cameras, and gets that steely look of resolve in his eye. That just melts the hearts of many people on the right, including most especially Charlie Sykes. It's the same thing that Bush does that makes the right act like the front row of a New Kids on the Block concert. But when it comes to follow through, we find that Clarke's words have been hollow, as have Bush's. Clark has had five years of swaggering and no years of results.

This blind fanboyishness (fangirlishness, even) of the right led them to do things like make up stuff about Clarke's primary opponent Vince Bobot, saying Bobot was a wuss or soft on crime. That was a convenient re-writing of history, given Bobot's long history as a decorated veteran officer, tough-on-crime judge, and city attorney. But, remember, we're in the midst of an election season that requires some on the right to just make stuff up in order to shield themselves from reality--in this case, the reality that the booted swaggering man they love is just an empty uniform.

It's time to repudiate them, and time to return results to the office of Milwaukee County Sheriff. Please remember that, and vote for Don Holt on November 7.

(And thus concludes this installment of the occasional series known as my endorsements. This series will return in time for the school board elections in the spring.)

WI-AG, the folkbum endorsement: Kathleen Falk for Attorney General

The biggest problem Republican J.B. Van Hollen seems to have--or, rather, the biggest problem I have with J.B. Van Hollen--is that he thinks the job of Attorney General is something other than what it is.

Actually, that may not be true; Van Hollen and his staff people are probably not, in fact, that dumb. But they have made a conscious decision to campaign on a flawed premise, in the hopes that they can fool enough of the people for a few more days and collect the votes they need to put Van Hollen in office.

That premise? J. B. Van Hollen wants to be Superman. You know, out there fightin' for truth, justice, and the American way.

Every time I've heard him (or one of his surrogates), the emphasis is on fighting crime. Tackling illegal immigration. Stopping all the terrorists lurking behind every cheese-and-taxedermy shop in the state. Which is all such a small part of what the state Department of Justice does, it's not even funny.

I can't say I blame him; the only thing Van Hollen ("Jump!
Jump! Go ahead and jump!" Sorry--I just couldn't hold out any longer) has going for him is his record as a tough-on-crime prosecutor and US attorney. And when stacked up against Kathleen Falk's decidedly less shallow vitae, Van Hollen's resume looks pretty thin, hollow, unimpressive.

I endorsed incumbent Peg Lautenschlager in the primary not because I don't like Kathleen Falk, but rather because I thought Peg had done well as Jim Doyle's successor in the office, and she deserved a second term. But as I predicted, Falk won easily enough. And that's okay with me--as I wrote at the time, "she is head, shoulders, and torso above the Republican competition." She remains so.

Consider, for example, the decade and a half Falk served as an Assistant Attorney General, years of experience doing the kind of work that AG's actually do. Most of that time, Falk was our Public Intervenor, the person who directly answered to the will of the people on matters that involved distputes between the public and other state agencies. She knows exactly what it's like to stand up for and with the citizens and voters of this state, which Van Hollen can only dream about (in his red cape and underpants-on-the-outside).

Consider, as well, the fact that Falk manages, budgets for, and leads with competence and acumen an organization many times the size of the state's Department of Justice. It should be a piece of cake for her to handle an office of that size, while Van Hollen has only ever lorded over a virtual fortress of soiltude.

Consider, finally, the fact that Falk was arguing cases in Wisconsin's courts--including our Supreme Court--almost before Van Hollen could change his own clothes, phone booth or no.

That's just three basic, fundamental, critical ways Kathleen Falk is light-years ahead of Van Hollen in what it takes to be AG. And yet, Van Hollen and his team (Fraley, in particular) have tried to make this race one about experience, since Van Hollen, in his understudy Superman role, has prosecuted criminal cases. Anyone remember a single criminal case, outside of Chai Vang's, that an AG in Wisconsin has personally tried in the last decade or two? No? Me neither.

So this is what we're left with: J. B. Van Hollen, who thinks this job is all about the Superman, and who has a great deal of experience that doesn't adequately prepare him for the office, thinks Kathleen Falk doesn't have the experience or the expertise to do the job. This, ladies and gentleman, is what we in the business call irony--like the clothing brand the misspells academics, or the old Norton CrashGuard program I had that wouldn't used to let my computer start up. I'm not saying that the AG's office never prosecutes the kinds of crimes Van Hollen thinks he'll get to try; however, the AG's office is so much more than that.

Unfortunately for Van Hollen, he's banking on the voters forgetting that fact, that the AG does more than just what Jack McCoy does, more than just fighting crime. I don't know that he can pull that deception off to the extent that he needs to.

--

Like me, Paul Soglin endorsed Peg Lautenschlager in the primary, and he was much less sanguine about a Falk nomination than I. However, I open up my browser yesterday to see this from the former Madison mayor:

I have had my differences with Kathleen Falk. They are relevant as to differences within the progressive community. My views on her negotiations with Governor Thompson on the future of regional planning and certain land use issues were important within the Democratic Party primary. When I look at her opponent's values on these matters, the contest isn't close.

He identifies his level of support as "enthusiastic." The Recess Supervisor, perhaps sensing the same issues with Van Hollen that I have, also endorsed Falk yesterday--though I say perhaps because he doesn't seem to do it for any good reason other than he thinks she'll make a good governor some day.

--

Experience isn't always the end-all and be-all of electoral politics. I support both Steve Kagen and Bryan Kennedy, neither of whom have held office before. After all, the House is the kind of place where the leadership doesn't let you do very much unti they think they can take the leash off of you. And a quiet first term is not a bad way learn the ropes and start working, as one of 435, toward a committee chair or other leadership positions.

But the Attorney General doesn't get to stand back and watch the world work around her. The job requires an ability to jump in with both feet running, an ability to be the leader from day one. Kathleen Falk doesn't have to learn on the job. She doesn't have to learn how to listen to the public when they speak. She doesn't have to learn how to successfully manage a department as large and diverse as Justice. She doesn't have to learn how to represent the people or the state in court on matters not criminal. The learning curve for Falk, in other words, is near zero.

J. B. Van Hollen may want to be--may think he is--Superman. But not even the ability to leap steep learning curves with a single bound is enough for him to deserve this. Vote for Kathleen Falk on November 7.

Anti-Gay Marriage and Civil Unions Amendment, the folkbum recommendation: Vote NO November 7

Shall section 13 of article XIII of the Wisconsin constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?

I'm going to be blunt here for a second: For a significant part of the "yes" crowd, this amendment is all about the butt sex. They don't like it, and this is a chance to register that disgust.

For a significant part of the "no" crowd, this is about same-sex marriage (or, perhaps, civil unions). They want it legalized, and this is a chance to register that desire.

The amendment is actually about neither of those things--if it passes, the butt sex will still be legal, and if it fails, same-sex marriage will still be illegal. Even if we get what we want, we won't get what we want.

For a small, teeny, tiny slice of people in the middle, this vote is actually about the scope of the amendment's wording, whether it's too broad and overreaching or just broad enough to stop those activist judges. It is on them--I'd guess maybe five or seven percent of voters, total--that the burden in this election falls; this amendment will succeed or fail based on their choice in the voting booth.

For me, the choice is easy. I'm part of the "no" crowd as described above; I believe there is no reason (and I have argued this exhaustively over the last two-plus years) to deny gay and lesbian couples the rights and responsibilities (and the title) granted automatically to heterosexual couples through marriage. Whatever horror stories partisans try to spin about Scandanavia or Massachusetts, no conclusive evidence exists that the sky has fallen where gay marriage is legal (see this post, for example).

For many bloggers on the right--Dad29 is a good example--the choice is easy. You know by his constant references to "homosex" marriage and his insistence that Mark Foley's predatory nature is normal for gay men that his understanding of the issues doesn't get far beyond what parts go where. And, as nice as Dad29 may be in real life, his is an attitude rooted in bias and prejudice against people who engage in that behavior--behavior which both hurts no one and, as with sex in any "heterosex" marriage, is not what truly defines a relationship worth recognizing. See, for example, this story of two men whose connection is not rooted in sex at all. But Dad29's irrational obsession with the butt sex would deny these men a satisfaction for "the need for mutual love and affection."

For Julaine Appling, the point-woman for the "yes" vote here in Wisconsin, the choice is also easy, and she is well-poised to harness the discriminatory impulses of those who hate the butt sex. Cory Liebmann has documented her ultra-discriminatory history:

Appling attended Bob Jones University in the 1970s, receiving three degrees. During the time that Appling attended Bob Jones University, they refused to admit African American students. Bob Jones started admitting married African American students in 1971 and single African American students in 1975. This is also a university whose chairman refused to fly the campus flag at half-mast when Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. Chairman Bob Jones, Jr. called the civil rights leader an "apostate." The University that Appling chose to attend also banned interracial dating until 2001. Prior to that year, the University said that it would expel students who dated or married "outside their own race" or "espouse, promote or encourage others" to violate those rules.

It is clear that Julaine Appling's education at Bob Jones University is informing her thinking on discrimination. University officials held that its ban on interracial dating and marriage did not discriminate against anyone because it applied to all races equally. Compare this with a statement from Appling's organization, which, after saying that the amendment would not discriminate against anyone, continues to say the following: "all Americans have the right to marry, subject to certain conditions that apply equally"

There is a more intellectual flavor of proponent, too, the Rick Esenbergs and Owen Robinsons of the world, convinced that a yes vote is all that will save us from the courts--"black-robed mullahs," in the words of another blogger. Esenberg, in particular, has spent three of his last four posts (as of this writing) telling us how what happened in New Jersey (their Supreme Court pulled a Vermont, ordering that the state offer either marriage or civil unions to same-sex couples) is The End Of The World And Could Happen Here Any Minute Now And We Must Pass This Amendment To Protect The People From The Courts.

It's this argument that, on the one hand, is far more persuasive than people who don't like the butt sex or people who insist on forcing their religious views on the rest of us. But on the other hand, this is also the most ridiculous, since the "will of the people," which supposedly would be subverted by the courts--was subverted by the Jersey court, they say--is against the sentiment of half this amendment. Let me rephrase: Their argument is that the will of the people (as expressed, for example, by a vote on an amendment like this, or through their elected representatives) should not be overturned by a court. And if same-sex marriage were imposed, that would be the case.

But a solid majority of Wisconsinites are in favor of offering civil unions to same-sex couples: A 2004 Badger Poll (.pdf), taken when the amendment was first up for discussion, found that an amendment that made no mention of civil unions--in other words, banned only marriage--polled at 64%, well above the 53% the amendment as written polled (these results were mirrored in a St. Norbert poll earlier this year, which I haven't been able to Google up, but is referred to here). A Badger Poll from earlier this year (.pdf) found support of civil unions--outside of the context of the amendment--had support of a full 60% of Wisconsinites. If what happened in New Jersey happened here, it would finally force the legislature to confront the fact that most of us here feel that same-sex relationships do indeed deserve protection, rights, and recognition, whether we call it marriage or not. In other words, a civil unions ruling would make the legislature actually implement the will of the people--hardly the End Of The World scenario Esenberg and his ilk would have us believe.

Another, even more silly argument from that side, is that if the amendment fails, the next day there will be court cases demanding legalized same-sex marriage. I doubt that, in part because Wisconsin's law against same-sex marriage has been challenged and stood previously. But we also know from experience that even if the amendment passes, there will be court cases galore. Everyone who's honestly looked at this recognizes that the "yes" side is just as prone--if not moreso--to using the courts to get what they want. The Alliance Defense Fund, for example, already has a history of filing suit here in Wisconsin to stop same-sex partner benefits. This was the same Alliance Defense Fund tapped by John Gard and the legislature to defend the state against the suit to provide partner benefits at the UW.

Finally, it's also important to remember that this amendment, like the death penalty referrendum, relies on Republicans' belief that voters are rubes. If they really cared, they could have had this amendment on the ballot 18 months ago, but they chose to delay protecting the people from the evils of gay marriage long enough that it would boost turnout for Mark Green. In fact, some on the "yes" side were a bit giddy at the news from New Jersey, figuring it would galvanize and energize Republican voters (and they accuse us of making this partisan!).

In the end, as I said at the beginning, the vast majority of us will be voting on ths amendment not based on the subtleties and ramifications of its wording, but rather on the broader notions it represents--either we don't like the butt sex or we don't see why our gay and lesbian friends should be denied equal rights just because they're born loving differently than we do. Clearly, I fall into the latter camp, and I encourage you--even if you don't like the butt sex, even if you have been tempted by the silly arguments of the Esenberg camp--to vote no next week. An amendment denies the legislature the ability to implement the popular civil unions; an amendment provides the impetus for those who hate the butt sex to fill the courts with lawsuits for years to come.

And an amendment which denies rights to citizens has never been done before here in Wisconsin. This is not the time to start that tradition, either.

Vote no on November 7.

Death Penalty Referendum, the folkbum recommendation: Vote NO November 7

Should the death penalty be enacted in the State of Wisconsin for cases involving a person who is convicted of first degree intentional homicide, if the conviction is supported by DNA evidence?

There are many different reasons to vote against this non-binding, advisory death penalty referendum, not the least among them (for me, at least) a resistance to state-sanctioned killing. If there is killing to be done, it will not be in my name. I may be a godless, soulless, artless liberal, but I believe that every human life--from murderer to Iraqi civilian to Michael J. Fox--has value, and I have no right to say when that value becomes zero.

But beyond that, the people behind this referendum are using it, using voters across the state, for their own ends--exploiting them, as some might say. Those ends have little to do with the wording of the referendum question. For one, the referendum is timed to create the largest impact on turnout: Originally scheduled by the State Senate to drive up conservative turnout in the September primary, by the time the Assembly got a hold of the measure, Scott Walker had dropped out, leaving no top-ticket Republican race in the primary. So the Assembly changed the date to November, figuring higher conservative turnout then couldn't hurt.

The people behind this were also hoping the timing would correspond neatly to the trial of Steven Avery, a trial that has been delayed by developments since the legislature's setting of the measure. As originally conceieved by supporters, the ballot question would have asked about multiple murders (as reflected in some of the initial official analysis), but after Avery allegedly murdered his single victim--and his case became very high profile--that changed, too. The supporters, again, used what they had for the greatest political gain.

And it's clear this week that regardless of the actual wording of the referendum, supporters in the legislature will do whatever they want, anyway. Renee Crawford points us to an article in Sunday's Wisconsin State Journal where the lead sponsor of the referendum makes it clear (my emphasis):

Sen. Alan Lasee, R-De Pere, the referendum's lead sponsor, cautioned against reading too much into the resolution's wording.

Lasee said the ballot question with its DNA clause is meant to poll voters on a general concept--how would they feel about the death penalty if safeguards could be built in to avoid convicting innocent people? It has never been his intent to limit the death penalty to convictions involving DNA evidence, he said.

He included the DNA clause to defang opponents. "It was my hope that this would dispel some of the fence-sitters from saying that the sky is falling and that someone is going to be wrongly convicted," he said.

Asked how seriously voters should take the resolution's language, Lasee said, "Voters can read into or out of it whatever they want. The bottom line is, 'Should the death penalty be reinstated, with or without DNA testing?'"

(Aside to John McAdams: You sound a little bloodthirsty in that article, too.)

I don't think I'm being too cynical here; it's pretty clear that the sponsors of this referendum don't actually care that much about justice, about the value of human life, or, for that matter, the intelligence of the voters themselves. Regardless of whether or not you are willing to sanction state-sponsored killing, you should be insulted by this. This state was pretty forward-looking to have abolished the death penalty back in 1853--150 years before the recent round of moratoriums. But that doesn't mean a thing to the reactionaries running the legislature. So tell them how much they are wrong, and vote no on November 7.

Attorney General, the folkbum endorsement: Peg Lautenschlager

You probably saw it coming, but here's my endorsement in the Democratic Attorney General primary: Peg Lautenschlager.

I spent a lot of time last year talking about this race, and very little doing so this year. Until the last week or so, the race has been kind of a sleeper, and I've been saving up what I have to say. But to recap:

I was never in favor of Kathleen Falk's getting into the race. Not because I don't like her or don't think that she'd do a good job--she is head, shoulders, and torso above the Republican competition--but because the only to challenge Peg is her DUI. Well, that, and she is not a big campaigner, which when it comes to AG I think could be a good thing. I cautioned that a high-profile primary could suck the life out other solid Democratic pick-up chances. And it didn't take long after Falk announced her candidacy before the ugly stories stared, and I was feeling pretty pessimistic.

However, things got quiet. For a long time, I was impressed by the way Falk kept the campaign on the issues, and Peg kept quietly doing her job. Even when there was a disagreement over whether to make first-time DUIs a felony, Falk didn't tie it directly to Peg. I was thinking I'd end up staying true to my initial instinct not to endorse at all.

And then things got ugly. You might say that Peg started it with a relatively negative ad on Falk's experience. (A later ad also challenged Falk's contributor list--and ad that had to be changed to be more accurate.) But the response--almost as if Falk had it in the can--was about the DUI. You can see the ad on YouTube through Fred's place.

As Tony Palmieri phrased it, it was the end to Falk's "wink and nod campaign." I don't remember where I read it, but perhaps the best description of last week's ad wars is that Peg went negative, but Falk went dirty.

And this is what I was afraid of.

One reason I endorsed Scot Ross is that Doug LaFollette refused to debate, fearing it would give ammunition to the Republicans. Falk and Peg have debated, but that's not where the negative ammo is going to come from.

Maybe, you might be thinking, it's good that our AG candidates are facing the tough fire now. Well, I don't know. But i would much rather see the passion, the TV time, and the press coverage go to, say, Jim Sullivan or Pat Kreitlow or John Gard's limpish personality.

In the end, I have to go back to what I've maintained all along: Peg Lautenschlager has been an excellent Attorney General, which has earned her tremendous respect and admiration and enorsements from all over the state. There is no reason--other than, perhaps, "electability"--to change course here. We should return Peg Lautenschlager to the job.

WI-08, the folkbum endorsement: Steve Kagen

As with the Secretary of State primary, I wasn't sure I was going to endorse anyone in the open 8th Congressional District primary. There are three strong and capable Democrats running for that seat, and any one of them will be a marked improvement over not just John Gard, the presumptive Republican nominee, but Mark Green and any other Republican in Congress right now.

However, the more I've thought about it and the more I've read about the race, I've come to the conclusion that the strongest candidate, and the one most likely to be able to provide an appealing alternative to Gard, is Steve Kagen.

I've been predisposed to like Kagen since he was the first of the three candidates to make a direct appeal to bloggers a year ago. Reaching out to the netroots is an important symbolic step, even if, as I assured him then and am more convinced of now, my own influence is relatively small. In that first meeting and in a second one last spring, he wasn't just seeking money or pixels; he was actively seeking advice. Kagen listens, and that's one thing I like about him.

This is not to say that Nancy Nusbaum (Jamie Wall just doesn't have a shot) wouldn't listen either; all I know is she never called me.

But it is in the contrast between Kagen and Nusbaum that I see a reflection of what the contrast would be between Kagen and Gard. 2006 is, nationally, shaping up to be an anti-Republican, anti-incumbent year. John Gard is nothing if not a Republican incumbent, even if he's never held this particular office. Gard is a politician's politician. Everyone knows who he is and what he is and, frankly, people just don't like him that much. Nancy Nusbaum, of course, hasn't been sitting atop an ineffective and reactionary legislature. But Nusbaum is also a politician--albeit one on the side of good rather than evil. Kagen, on the other hand, can ride a wave of anti-politician sentiment that Nusbaum and Gard can't harness.

I think the voters in the 8th are seeing that. I can't help but roll my eyes a little bit every time someone tells me that Kagen is winning big--the polls they cite are all paid for by Kagen's campaign. However, it is important to note that neither Gard nor Nusbaum is releasing internal polling data. That suggests to me that the numbers Gard and Nusbaum are seeing aren't the kind to be proud of. Even if you take Kagen's polls with a grain of salt, the lack of data from Gard and Nusbaum still speaks volumes.

The Republicans, who lined up behind Gard, also are looking at Kagen as their eventual opponent. The NRCC is already buying coordinated ads against Kagen. There's no question that the Republicans have made some bad decisions in this cycle (how much money are they spending to defend Lincoln Chaffee in a primary?), but I believe they must have their own polling showing a Kagen win on the Democratic side.

The 8th is a winnable district this year: There's no incumbent, and a general anti-Republican sentiment across the nation. I firmly believe that the best bet we have to take it is with Steven Kagen.

US Senate, the folkbum endorsement: Ben Masel

Is Herb Kohl the worst Democrat in the United States Senate? Republicans, independents, and Democrats alike can agree that the answer to that question is indeed no, though for different reasons. But has Kohl's time in the Senate been so distinguished and so extraordinary that he does not deserve a viable challenger? Again, most of us would probably say no.

Unfortunately, it looks like the most serious challenge to Kohl will come this year from Green Rae Vogler; Robert Lorge's 30% or so will come mostly from Republicans reflexively voting that way, not because they support him. But if you're voting in the Democratic primary--as I am--you can't also vote for Vogeler. Therefore, I recommend my friend and professional troublemaker Ben Masel.

Yes, I know, that's a MySpace page. Ben doesn't have one of them fancy websites with the bells and the whistles and the forms for signing up to get a yard sign or anything. This is primarily because he isn't making much money at this gig; he's accepting maximum $1 contributions to his campaign. If I remember right, he's collected somewhere around $500 so far (Ben will likely jump in to the comments below with the up-to-date figure).

It's a safe bet, then, he will be massively outspent by Herb Kohl.

That doesn't mean that Kohl shouldn't hear about the things that we don't like about him. His support for the Iraq War Resolution remains one that sticks in my craw, as well as his vote for the bankruptcy legislation that privileges credit card companies over working families. Ben Masel would not have supported either of those measures.

In the end, am I going to worry if Kohl is re-elected? No; he is, most of the time, a perfectly reliable Democratic vote. But he's not a leader, and he's unwilling to stick his neck out to protect the people of Wisconsin the way Russ Feingold does. Or the way Ben Masel would.

Secretary of State, the folkbum endorsement: Scot Ross

I went back and forth about whether I wanted to make an endorsement in this race, and it even took me a while to figure out who I wanted to vote for. But it's become clear in the last week or so that Scot Ross is da man.

I'm not saying that Doug LaFollette has been bad as Secretary of State; but he hasn't been good, either. He's just kind of been. But elected Democrats have been telling me he does nothing for the party. He's steadfastly refused to debate Ross (as Ross noted on this very blog) for fear it would give the Republicans "ammunition." Carrie Lynch at What's Left has been all over the story of how LaFollette doesn't know how to campaign legally in the age of the internets--something LaFollette got nailed for last week (see today's Wisconsin State Journal for more).

But what pushed me over into deciding to endorse is the fact that Scot Ross has a sense of humor. Last week--before LaFollette was fined by the state ethics board--the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel endorsed him, almost entirely based on the fact that, while a staffer in the Democratic Caucus office, Ross did some campaign work for his bosses on state time. (Ross cooperated fully with the investigation that led to convictions and jail time for top Democrats and Republicans in the legislature at the time.) Here's Ross's response:

Caucus Involvement to Cost Green Journal Sentinel Nod
‘Charlie Sykes is Going to Be Ticked About This,’ Says Ross

Wisconsin – Scot Ross, Democratic Secretary of State Candidate, predicted Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Green would lose the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel endorsement, due to Green’s involvement in the caucus scandal.

“No newspaper with any credibility would have a double standard when it comes to how they treat Democrats versus Republicans,” said Ross. “Unfortunately for Mark Green, his involvement in the caucus scandal likely means he has forfeited the chance to win the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s endorsement.” [. . .]

“What was going on was wrong and I hope my cooperation was of some assistance,” said Ross. “I remain concerned the only one who has refused to come clean is Mark Green, who talks like Sergeant York when he’s risking other people’s children in Iraq, but sounds like Sergeant Schultz when he’s trying to save his own skin.”

Yeah, it's a cheesy press release, but it's right on the money. I think the Journal Sentinel will likely endorse Doyle--for other reasons beyond Green's having been up to his elbows in caucus scandal--but Ross, with a much better attitude than I might have taken, drew a bright red line and dared the paper's editorial board to cross it come November. I like that kind of moxie.

Now, I do have some reservations about Ross's ideas to return some authority over elections to the SoS office; I like the non-partisan (or, really, multi-partisan) board we have now. I'm not a big fan of current chair Kevin Kennedy, but for 30 years Wisconsin's had unelected independent officials overseeing elections in this state. I don't think Scot Ross would ever be a Katherine Harris of a Ken Blackwell, but the potential for mischief by someone less principled makes me wary. However, that kind of change has to be made in the legislature, and with any luck--and a Democratic State Senate--something like SB-1 could pass and elections can get cleaner without centralizing control in a partisan elected office.

In the meantime, Scot Ross will revitalize the Secretary of State's office.

Milwaukee County Sheriff, the folkbum endorsement: Vince Bobot

This one's easy: Since there is exactly one real Democrat running in the primary for Milwaukee County Sheriff, I'm enthusiastically endorsing him: Vince Bobot.

Feel free to search my archives, as I've never been a big fan of David Clarke. But Don't just take my word for it: Consider Clarke's having been fired from the Milwaukee Police Department, for example. Michael Horne's got a story up at his blog right now detailing Clarke's obsession with guns, but the archives and permalinks seem broken. Here's the relevant portion:

Clarke has been criticized for his cavalier attitude toward weaponry, and milwaukeeworld will here add a third instance to the two already publicly known.

Clarke was famously photographed wearing his gun into the jail when he was escorting a fugitive into the slammer during one of his frequent publicity stunts, and this year Clarke wore his piece while bartending at an event for the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

On October 21, 1975, the Milwaukee Police Department arrested David Alexander Clarke, Jr., D.O.B. August 21st 1956, on one count of “Reckless Use Weapon 941.20” Back then, to be charged with a reckless use of a weapon, one actually had to have pointed the weapon at another individual, which seems to heighten the severity of the allegations.

Clarke was ultimately not prosecuted, and this remains his only arrest on criminal charges.

Milwaukee is not actually a Kevin Costner western.

Bobot's long career as a public servant includes much lauding and great praise, which you can read about at his website. Hearing him speak last fall, I was particularly impressed with his commitment to the community prosecution program he's been working with at the DA's office, and I hope he'll continue to encourage that kind of work when he assumes the mantle of Sheriff in January.

AD-23, the folkbum endorsement: Bill Elliott

I first met Bill Elliott in early 2004. I, like many others, had just come off the incredibly deflating experience of holding on to the Howard Dean campaign until the bitter, noisy end.

There were some rollicking good times, even near the end, when Dean pretty much camped out in Wisconsin through the primary. There was little question, though, that we bitter-enders were beat, in more ways then one.

Casting about for something--anything--to do, a number of us in Milwaukee started thinking about what else we could do, what would be next. We were bruised but not completely out of pluck. The idea of taking out a Republican--any Republican--seemed irresistible, and the perfect target was just a few miles away in F. Jim Sensenbrenner.

Candidates, too, seemed to recognize that within the leftovers of the Dean campaign were enough embers to make serious fire if used wisely, and it wasn't hard to convince even candidates for Congress to come to us, and we hosted Congressional candidates, Tom Barrett just days before the election, judges, and more.

In retrospect, we perhaps did have a bit of an inflated sensed of self-importance. But there's no denying that one candidate, Bryan Kennedy, got a tremendous boost from the boots we were able to put on the ground for him.

Bill Elliott was Bryan's campaign manager, and, though Bill always seemed very much to the left of the moderate candidate, he knew he had hold of a Good Thing in Bryan Kennedy. He also knew how to press every button and work every angle to try to get the Democratic establishment to notice that, hey, Sensenbrenner faced a real, competent opponent. Bryan never considered himself token opposition, and Bill never considered the race as anything other than a decidedly serious contest.

In the end, it was mostly tilting at windmills. Bryan's and Bill's attempts to get noticed by anyone higher up the Democratic ladder fell flat. In a post-election speech, Bryan made it clear that Madison Dems' refusal to help--and DC Dems' writing off of the race--hurt. Their support probably wouldn't have turned around the thirty-point spread that November, but it did vindicate a lot of what we Howard Dean types knew about The Party:

Professional Democrats didn't want to take chances.

We all know how that story ends. Howard Dean, with his controversial 50-state strategy, is now chair of the Democratic National Committee. Maybe among the Rahm Emanuel CYA types there remains derision of the idea, but now most people accept as gospel the idea that no seat should remain unchallenged, no race is too unimportant not to take chances.

Bill Elliott never gave up on the idea. Kennedy's one-year campaign against Sensenbrenner turned into a three-year campaign. Kennedy's quixotic effort now looks appealing to the Professional Democrats. Almost all of the credit--besides that which is due to Bryan Kennedy, who has been the best candidate that district could have asked for--belongs to Bill Elliott.

When Rep. Curt Gielow announced his retirement from the Assembly, Democrats saw a pick-up opportunity. Gielow is an endangered species--a moderate in the Republican Assembly caucus. His district, while certainly Republican, does not exhibit the characteristics that typically doom gerrymandered suburban districts to wingnuttery.

Among other things, Gielow always got high marks for his focus on affordable health care--something that Bill Elliott has made a centerpiece of his campaign. Bill's also been able to use the vast network he built while working for Bryan Kennedy to help him, and has by far the best ground game in the district. His fundraising techniques have even garnered national attention.

No amount of luck and hard work will put the Assembly back in the hands of Democrats. That's just a fact we need to face. But seats here and there are winnable--including the 23rd.

The man to win it is Bill Elliott.

Primary Endorsements

They start coming this weekend. Any last bags of cash need to be delivered to the folkbum household by the end of business Friday.

That is all.