Is Gov. Jim Doyle calling Rep. Gwen Moore a liar?

by folkbum

Because if he is, he should just use those words, and not beat around the bush:

Gov. Jim Doyle said Monday the state must give control of Milwaukee schools to the mayor to put in a "good faith" application for federal economic stimulus funds.

Gwen Moore, repeatedly, earlier:

During our discussion on July 9, you [Secretary of Education Arne Duncan] discussed your goals for Race to the Top, as well as the qualifications and standards that states need to follow in order to qualify for funding. I commend you for your transparency during this process, as well as for your willingness to clarify points of particular concern for my constituents at our meeting. Responding to my query regarding requirements for governance of school boards, you unequivocally stated that mayoral control of the school board is not a prerequisite to compete for Race to the Top funds--a position made clearer by the fact that the proposed rule does not mention the type of local school board control required to qualify for dollars.

One of the two must be lying or pushing a personal agenda regardless of the truth. And given that Gwen Moore has the documentation on her side (seriously, read about the Race funds and look for anything about urban district governance), I tend to believe her. If the governor knows something she doesn't, he needs to put that on the table or he'll keep looking like a fool.

Let's play . . . Debunk the Myth!

In comments to this post of mine, where I lay out just two of the differences between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to scandal, Clint (of Milwaukee Id10t fame) repeats some myths that I feel need front-page debunking:

Harry Reid is still in a leadership position (Abrahmof scandal) Hillary Clinton still hasn't 'found' any Rose Law Firm records... Gwen gets arrested by a foreign gov't, prohibits jobs creation and still has a job.

Doyle still has the gaming $$ and travel $$.

Delay stepped down on his own accord, no one HAD to vote him out of his position. Are you sure about this post? I think that you may have this backwards.

One at a time . . .

• Reid and Abramoff: The meida--and one Associated Press reporter, in particular--have consistently misrepresented Reid's connections to Jack Abramoff, usually leaving out the fact that Reid voted consistently against Abramoff's interests. It's worth noting that "[a] search of Reid's donations over the last 15 years shows that the Gambling/Casino industry/sector have been his largest donors in most every cycle." It's natural, then, that tribes represented by Abramoff might continue to contribute to Reid. What's more, many of the contributions Abramoff directed were done to increase his own clout with the tribes, not to win influence with politicians. But the most important thing to remember about Abramoff's clients is this:

  A new and extensive analysis of campaign donations from all of Jack Abramoff’s tribal clients, done by a nonpartisan research firm, shows that a great majority of contributions made by those clients went to Republicans. The analysis undercuts the claim that Abramoff directed sums to Democrats at anywhere near the same rate. [. . . T]he Morris and Associates analysis, which was done exclusively for The Prospect, clearly shows that it’s highly misleading to suggest that the tribes's giving to Dems was in any way comparable to their giving to the GOP. The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. This pattern suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would have given anyway.

• Hillary and the Rose Law Firm: Here's a long quote, but worth the full read:

  Even more damning was a "Nightline" report broadcast that same evening. The segment came very close to branding Hillary Clinton a perjurer. In his introduction, host Ted Koppel spoke pointedly about "the reluctance of the Clinton White House to be as forthcoming with documents as it promised to be." He then turned to correspondent Jeff Greenfield, who posed a rhetorical question: "Hillary Clinton did some legal work for Madison Guaranty at the Rose Law Firm, at a time when her husband was governor of Arkansas. How much work? Not much at all, she has said."
  
  Up came a video clip from Hillary's April 22, 1994, Whitewater press conference. "The young attorney, the young bank officer, did all the work," she said. "It was not an area that I practiced in. It was not an area that I know anything, to speak of, about." Next the screen filled with handwritten notes taken by White House aide Susan Thomases during the 1992 campaign. "She [Hillary] did all the billing," the notes said. Greenfield quipped that it was no wonder "the White House was so worried about what was in Vince Foster's office when he killed himself."
  
  What the audience didn't know was that the ABC videotape had been edited so as to create an inaccurate impression. At that press conference, Mrs. Clinton had been asked not how much work she had done for Madison Guaranty, but how her signature came to be on a letter dealing with Madison Guaranty's 1985 proposal to issue preferred stock. ABC News had seamlessly omitted thirty-nine words from her actual answer, as well as the cut, by interposing a cutaway shot of reporters taking notes. The press conference transcript shows that she actually answered as follows: "The young attorney [and] the young bank officer did all the work and the letter was sent. But because I was what we called the billing attorney -- in other words, I had to send the bill to get the payment sent -- my name was put on the bottom of the letter. It was not an area that I practiced in. It was not an area that I know anything, to speak of, about."
  
  ABC News had taken a video clip out of context, and then accused the first lady of prevaricating about the very material it had removed. Within days, the doctored quotation popped up elsewhere. ABC used the identical clip on its evening news broadcast; so did CNN. The New York Times editorial page used it to scold Mrs. Clinton, as did columnist Maureen Dowd. Her colleague William Safire weighed in with an accusatory column of his own: "When you're a lawyer who needs a cover story to conceal close connections to a crooked client," he began, "you find some kid in your office willing to say he brought in the business and handled the client all by himself." Safire predicted the first lady's imminent indictment.
  
  What really made the story take off, however, was White House aide Carolyn Huber's belated discovery of missing Rose Law Firm billing records that had been under subpoena by the OIC. [. . .] The records' contents also supported Hillary's testimony and public statements in detail. [. . .]
  
  Starr's investigators would spend years seeking evidence to the contrary, with no success.

  As you can see, not only did the law firm records turn up, they exonerated Clinton of any wrongdoing--despite the attempts of your liberal media to make her look guilty.
  
  
• Gwen Moore: Clint thinks Moore should resign because she was arrested protesting the genocide in Darfur. And he thinks she should resign because she--along with many others--thought that millions of tax dollars' worth of investment in the Menominee Valley deserved better employers than one that is primarily seasonal. It's a subject on which reasonable people might disagree; I personally thought BuySeasons should have been in, but they pulled out anyway for reasons unrelated to Moore's protests.
  
  
• Doyle: It is true that Doyle, perhaps in the spirit of good will or something, could return the donations, though no one has proven he did anything wrong--or that contributions influenced him. To be fair, Democrats have called for Doyle to make those returns. I myself have called for Doyle to fire anyone even remotely linked to scandals in his administration and run on a responsibility platform against Green, who hasn't given back his DeLay money (how many Republicans have suggested he do that?). But in digging around to make sure I had my facts straight on Abramoff, I found an editorial from the libertarian Cato Institute:

  Here's the troubling thing about this little ritual of returning donations. The standard of proof in public debates seems to be guilt-by-association. If Mr. Abramoff was a crook, everyone associated with him, including people who received legal contributions from him or his clients, is also guilty of wrongdoing. If Enron executives bilked investors, politicians share the blame. Given that reasoning, only a very public renunciation of the (monetary) tie to the wrongdoer holds out hope of acquittal.
  
  My generation grew up in the shadow of McCarthyism. Our teachers warned us that guilt-by-association drove the hysteria that did so much damage to our First Amendment freedoms. Now it appears that guilt-by-association is an unquestioned standard in the court of public opinion. Certainly the politicians giving back donations believe so. The media and everyone else simply assume the validity of the new standard.
  
  To be sure, guilt-by-association is a great weapon for demonizing and destroying one's opponents. It does less well at fostering civility, the rule of law, fairness or a respect for fundamental political rights. Perhaps those shortcomings should be kept in mind as official Washington readies itself to indulge once again in the pleasures of populist fury.

  Something to think about.
  
  
• Tom DeLay: While DeLay didn't have to be convicted before he resigned from Congress (a la Duke Cunningham), his resignation was timed just right. Consider: DeLay had been indicted already; one in four primary voters told him they wanted him out; his internal poll numbers showed the race to be "too close for comfort"; and the Texas Republican Party believed that if DeLay moved out of his Texas District, they could replace him on the ballot, giving them a chance to keep the seat. That last bit is what makes it suspicious . . .
  
  But there is a more important point in the DeLay mess that directly relates to the point of the post Clint was responding to in the first place. When William Jefferson was implicated--though not even indicted yet--Democrats pulled him from his committee position very quickly. When Tom DeLay was implicated in wrongdoing, Republicans specifically changed their caucus rules to protect him! That is the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

The Clinton and Reid myths Clint perpetuates make me most angry, since they are outright lies. The DeLay thing I think most clearly demonstartes how Republicans and Democrats deal with corruption among their own different. The Moore and Doyle things are a bit squishier, but both sides need airing here. I'm happy to do it, hopefully setting Clint straight.

Warner Woos Wisconsin: Founder's Day Dinner Wrap-Up

All photos, unless as noted, by my friend and fellow blogger Scott Feldstein, who has them at much better resolution at his place.

It is no secret that former Virginia governor Mark Warner is running for president. So he's doing what candidates do--particularly candidates who are "unemployed," as he kept reminding us during his speech--he's talking to any assemblage of Democrats he can get his hands on. And trying to drum up all the buzz he can.

The buzz is where I come in: A couple of weeks ago I got an email from Warner's Forward Together PAC--and, yes, in introducing Warner, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle did joke about Warner's use of Wisconsin's motto ("Forward!") in the name of his PAC. Nate invited me to attend the Democratic Party of Wisconsin's Founder's Day (née Jefferson-Jackson) Dinner as a guest of the PAC and to blog the event. So here we go . . .

Events like this are always a who's who of the state Dem party, so it was a lot of fun to get to meet or get re-accquanted with some of the big names in the party from around the state. And then it was also good to see my state representative and a few of the candidates for the open Congressional seat in Wisconsin's 8th CD, including Dr. Steve Kagen and Nancy Nusbaum (I also saw but didn't talk to Jamie Wall). There were tables full of goodies, too, including some great merchandise from Russ Feingold's PAC, like a t-shirt with a snake-like phone cord and the tagline "Don't Spy on Me!" (I can't find those online.) I got hit with so many stickers I felt like a race car.

And the place was packed, too, sold out. It shouldn't be that big of a surprise in an election year, but everyone seemed quite overjoyed that that many tickets were sold. It was a good night for the DPW's coffers, I guess.

How much of those full coffers were due to Warner, I don't know. I joined up with him and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle (that's them on the left, in a photo I took) as they left the extra-special VIP reception before the main event. Warner was mobbed even then, as Doyle tried to get him introduced to some more of the movers and shakers in the party. The speaking part of the night started almost half an hour late, in part because Doyle and Warner couldn't get into the room.



As I ate my buffet meatballs, veggie sticks, and cheese (it is Wisconsin, you know), the speakers for the night got up and did their thing: In order, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (not pictured), Congresswomen Tammy Baldwin and Gwen Moore, Senators Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and Governor Doyle.

The speakers all made a big deal both about the high attendance at the event (Barrett credited Wisconsin's dissatisfaction with Bush and Republicans, though I doubt any real swing voters were in the room) and the great successes Democrats have had in the state. In particular, they highlighted two results from last week's spring municipal elections: 24 of 32 communities voting to start bring troops home from Iraq now passed, some overwhelmingly (see my take on that) and the election of Democrat (in a non-partisan election against a Republican state representative) Larry Nelson as mayor of Waukesha. That's Larry smiling there in the right in a picture I took; I've known him for a few years, and he's a teacher, a labor leader, and a strong progressive. What makes this important is that the city of Waukesha is the red center of one of the reddest counties in the country, and Larry was able to win with a strong populist message. I do think that bodes well for this fall, and in particular, the campaign of Bryan Kennedy, running for the congressional seat that includes Waukesha, currently held by Jim Sensenbrenner.

But you didn't click on this diary to hear about all of that: You want to hear about Mark Warner. Yes, well, first I want to tell you what Russ Feingold said, since the two were the two presidential candidates in the room. You're probably pretty familiar with Feingold's message, which started and ended with the notion that Democrats need to "stand up" to Bush. He called again for censure (something Herb Kohl conveniently forgot to mention), and for a timetable to bring our troops home from Iraq by the end of this year. And, of course, he talked about the NSA spying scandals and administration stonewalling, although, I will tell you, the best line of the night on that actually came from Tammy Baldwin, who said, "It cannot be a government of the people if the people are kept in the dark."

Warner, as the keynote speaker, was able to do a lot more in his speech, including the biography bits necessary to introduce himself to an audience that didn't know him. In contrast with Russ, he spoke with less fire and passion, but with an equal desire, it seemed, to rid the country of its current leadership and put us back on track. In that way, I think he hit a strong message several times. He kept talking about "seeing further down the road," while Republicans, he said, "put posturing and posing ahead of foresight and follow-through." Part of that biography that Warner stressed is that he was able to look forward in business, starting up the company that went on to become Nextel. He also stressed that as governor of Virginia, he looked toward the future, including strong investments in education and bringing technological development in to replace fading manufacturing ("If they can build it in Bangalore, they can build it in Lebanon, Virginia"). "Politics," he said, "should not be about Left versus Right, but about the future versus the past."

Warner also struck some familiar Democratic foreign-policy themes, saying that "no one thinks it is more important than Democrats to keep America safe," and reminding us that a sound energy policy is a key element of national security. He lamented what has happened in Iraq.

He also said a few things that, I think, shows the influence that Howard Dean's run in 2004 will be having all over the 2008 race. I can't tell you how many times I heard Dean's stump speech in that cycle, so I know it well enough, and in Warner's stump here I heard the familiar themes: "Being called a 'red-state governor' makes me cringe," Warner said, "because the Democratic Party needs to be competitive in 50 states." Even in the foreign policy section, Warner talked about how we need an attitude that will "unite our friends and scare our enemies, not the other way around." Mostly, I was very surprised to hear Warner end with a call to "take our country back."

As it was the DPW's dinner, Warner made sure to reinforce several things. One, of course, is how important it is to re-elect Jim Doyle this fall. He helped to frame some things that will be very important to that race, including Mark Green's identity as a member of a very do-nothing Congress and the importance that the issue of stem cells will play in the election (at least, if Doyle's smart, they will be the campaign issue). He also took the time to remind of why he is a Democrat, even if some might be tempted to call him a "centrist" or "moderate." "I'm a Democrat because," he told us, "the Democratic Party has never stood for the status quo, but for hope and optimism." And he's right, you know; the Republicans have monopolized fear and distrust, and we must get that message of hope and optimism across in all races, at all levels, in all fifty states.

Warner left the stage to a standing ovation (about equivalent to Feingold's standing O earlier), and was immediately mobbed afterwards, by every elected official in the crowd, and a whole lot of everyone else (including civil rights pioneer Vel Phillips). I asked Warner's people how much of this sort of thing--traveling around the country talking to roomsful of Democrats--he was doing. "A lot," I was told. I tried a little bit to gauge the sentiments of the crowd afterwards as well, and everyone seemed to like Warner's message. It's hard, of course, for Wisconsin Democrats to talk about anyone but Russ as a favorite for 2008, but I didn't find anyone who said they hated Warner.

I know that Mark Warner has a strong following on the internet, and now, having met him and heard what is clearly a compelling story, it is easy to see why. Certainly, with a field including the likes of Feingold and Warner, 2008 will be a great year for Democrats.

***

Two last things: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a fair take on the event here. I should also point out that the dinner was live-blogged by Zach Corey at CampusTavern.com. All that time taking notes in class must have paid off, because he's got a pretty accurate rendition of all the speeches: Mark Warner, Jim Doyle, Herb Kohl, Russ Feingold, Gwen Moore, and Tammy Baldwin.