Concealing motives for gun permit secrecy

By Bert

It was two years ago this week that a white, suburban, church-going, and gainfully employed man named Terry Ratzmann shot dead eight innocent people in Brookfield.

I resurrect that awful case not to provoke some fight about gun control issues. The fact is, that fight has already been provoked. So I bring it up to join in.

The website of the Roanoake Times published the names of concealed- gun permit holders in Virginia on Sunday. This brought down an avalanche of outrage on the paper, and also some local commentary from places where you'd expect it.

This revives the issue of whether an exception should be made to standard open-records laws so that the names of permit-holders should be kept secret in the states that allow concealed weapons for most citizens. This secrecy provision was part of the past debates here in Wisconsin on the concealed carry bill that Gov. Jim Doyle has vetoed twice.

The common objection to public access to these government records is flimsy. The story goes that criminals will diligently research these data, then surmise who is not packing heat, and victimize those not on the list. Please.

That reason is flimsy because it's not the real reason. The motive for secrecy is related to the pro-gun campaign's talking point that only lawbreakers commit gun crimes. The evidence for this is the claim that you can't find cases of law-abiding citizens who use guns illegally. It's only the "bad guys". Besides the circularity of the argument, you can see where they are going with this. They want to avoid bad press from the inevitable cases of the rare bad-apple permit-holders shooting wives in a domestic dispute, or getting likkered up and trigger happy, etc.

It's cases like Ratzmann's that don't fit the image of the bad guy that propels this campaign. In fact, setting aside for the moment that he killed eight innocent people, Ratzmann fit the promoted image of the decent, law-abiding gun owner. There is a reason why this case of gun violence is not trotted around repeatedly.

Instead, we hear more about the lessons we should learn from the case that occurred a month later in 2005. This was the older Arkansas man, stopping to ask for directions at a gas station on North Avenue in Milwaukee, who shot and killed a young man who tried to rob his van.

The pro-gun campaign depends on a manufactured message. It is a naive either-or vision of perfect people like you and me on one side, and exaggerated threats lurking on the other. Open records, and tragedies like Terry Ratzmann, contaminate that message.

Are we swiftboating Annette Ziegler?

by folkbum

The political lexicon lacks a great deal of flexibility (the -gate suffix's being attached to every potential scandal a generation later is just one example of how stale the vocabulary is), but swiftboat, I think, is a welcome and reasonable addition to the party. If used correctly, that is.

The word, of course, comes from the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" organization, a group ironically dedicated to spreading demonstrably false stories about John Kerry during the 2004 election season. I like Wikipedia's definition: "By using credible-sounding sources to make sensational and difficult-to-disprove accusations against an opponent, the campaign leverages media tendencies to focus on a controversial story." In other words, as happened in the 2004 campaign, gather a bunch of veterans who, though they served in Vietnam on a switftboat never actually served with Kerry; have them question Kerry's service; then let the media's faux-balance desire for "he said-he said" journalism take over, thereby legitimizing the false statements.

In the end, swiftboating is just a media-savvy version of "When did you stop beating your wife?" It's all about smear, and not so much about truth.

Washington County Judge Annette Ziegler has--on this blog, elsewhere on the internet, and in the traditional media now, too--been severely criticized for lapses in her ethical judgment. Some of the criticisms, such as perhaps the Wal*Mart case flap, are pushing it (which is why I haven't touched the Wal*Mart flap lately, since I tend to dwell in the realm of Things That Matter). But other allegations, in my opinion, have merit. Consider, for example, some of the non-Wal*Mart examples listed by One Wisconsin Now:

According to Ziegler's own Statement of Economic Interest filings with the State Ethics Board, Ziegler's husband J.J. Ziegler has worked for West Bend Savings Bank as a paid director and she has claimed income from the bank for renting property to them. (3) (4 [pdf])

In addition, state and Washington County Register of deed records show that Ziegler has received $3.1 million in loans from West Bend Savings Bank, including a $2 million loan during her campaign for our highest court. (2 [pdf]), (5), (6 [pdf])

Ziegler has also heard 46 cases involving West Bend Savings Bank.

In the cases involving her husband's bank, Ziegler has ruled in favor of West Bend Savings Bank with well over $100,000 in cash settlements, home foreclosures and seized vehicles.

When questioned by the Wisconsin State Journal, Ziegler's campaign manager Mark Graul, initially told the paper that Ziegler's practice in cases involving the bank was to disclose the conflict and "offer to the parties to recuse herself" or to have them waive the requirement and allow her to continue. (7)

The Wisconsin State Journal reported that, "He insisted she had notified the parties and gotten approval to continue presiding over the cases." (7) [. . .]

[I]t wasn't the truth. A Wisconsin State Journal report revealed that in 46 cases involving West Bend Savings Bank where Ziegler was the sitting judge, there are "no indications that Ziegler withdrew from West Bend Savings cases, and no notices to the parties of any conflict." (8)

The defendants in 4 cases looked at by the Wisconsin State Journal told the paper the Washington County Circuit judge did not withdraw from the cases - nor did she disclose her conflict - as required by Supreme Court rules governing the conduct of Judges in Wisconsin. (7) [. . .]

To date, Ziegler has offered no evidence that she disclosed the conflict to any of the parties in the cases. Instead, Ziegler has said she relied on a "gut check" rather than court rules about conflicts in deciding to hear the cases. (8)

Or consider this specific story, from a Linda Clifford press release:

Jeanie Kidd appeared before Ziegler last year as a defendant against West Bend Savings Bank. Kidd's case is one of 46 that Judge Ziegler has heard that involved the bank. Ziegler's husband is a paid member of the bank's board of directors and the Ziegler family leases the bank space. In addition, the bank has loaned Ziegler over $3 million.

Because Kidd resided out of state, she requested a postponement of the hearing on seizure of her automobile. Judge Ziegler denied the request and ordered Kidd to appear at the hearing by telephone. At the time of the hearing, the bank failed to show. Although a statute allowed dismissal for the bank's failure to appear, Ziegler instead adjourned the hearing for the benefit of the bank. At the adjourned hearing, judgment was awarded to the bank.

In at least nine cases, Ziegler faced the opposite scenario where a defendant failed to appear while West Bank Savings did. In each of these instances no continuance was granted, Ziegler instead ruled in the bank's favor.

Setting aside the source of that information, the underlying facts of this and other cases are not in distpute--not by Ziegler, not by Graul (any more), not by the documentary evidence available from the courts. What is described here is accurate and true to the greatest extent that everybody involved can prove.

Which is why I'm surprised to see someone call this a swiftboating, particularly someone who tends to run to the liberal side:

What I really hate, and have to suck it up anyway is the way professional journalists, strategists, career statesmen and good old boys are masquerading as "citizen bloggers" to orchestrate old-fashioned mud-slinging campaigns. Okay, so some party people were freaked out at the "new Power" that bloggers had with the Dean business and the Dan Rather thing and all that. Even if it works in your favor, it's a rogue element - uncontrollable if it genuinely comes from The People.

So get a bunch of Good Old Boys in there - not the shaggy t-shirt crowd that bloggers were to start, but established journalists and seasoned power boys in their 50s and 60s who know the ropes and can hopefully steer things in a coordinated direction. But most importantly, protect the status quo. Edge out the uncontrolled rogue elements with flashier sites and greater posting frequency and that so-lovely air of entitlement. Whatever.

Funny thing is - I wonder how long till the Republicans get a private investigator to set up a blog where s/he can disseminate the stuff they dig up about Democratic candidates. The guys who did the swift-boating of Kerry believed they were following a higher cause too, that they had a sacred mission to keep an Undesirable out of office. They would have said they were just "telling the truth". Yet, though I am a "liberal" I think it is quite obvious that the Republican judge in this "non-partisan" race is being swift-boated too from the point of view of HER supporters. The definition you use depends on the side you are on and all words have no solid meaning anymore. All wars are sacred, all words are partisan - it's quite a gift we have all been given by the power-obsessed among us.

I think that somewhere in there Jody's making a point about groups like Progressive Majority or even One Wisconsin, which I think might distill, as Dave Diamond suggests, into something like a complaint that bloggers are being ruined by partisan influences, or something. But it's the accusation of swiftboating that hangs in my craw: I have not heard "HER supporters" toss around that word and, in fact, the more considered (and more lawyerly) among them concede that Ziegler was wrong on many of those cases.

So are we swiftboating Annette Ziegler? Does what's happening here rise (sink?) to the "When did you stop beating your wife?" level of political discourse?

Perhaps I'm biased and defensive, as one who broke parts of this story, but I say no. For starters, unlike the claims of the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth," the only allegations I have made--and the only allegations made in the media, as led by the Wisconsin State Journal--are ones supported by the evidence at hand. There is no crime or shame in, as the Journal Sentinel editorial board did, saying, "Here's what we know based on facts in evidence; can you explain it?" to a campaign or to a candidate--a far cry from the insinuations or falsehoods of a true swiftboating.

In fact, the only aspersions I see being cast around are things like Jessica McBride's laughable "media bias" claims. (And I mean laughable; McBride reprints her shockingly indignant email to the managing editor of the Wisconsin State Journal and his answers. I was embarrassed for her.) That and Jody's assertion that me and my baggy-shirted colleagues are getting strung along by The Powers That Be.

Until someone can show me that somehow every shred of documentary evidence we have is wrong, that every defendant now complaining that Ziegler never disclosed her conflicts is lying, or that Ziegler somehow doesn't own stocks in the numbers that put her in violation of a judicial ethics review panel's ruling, I will not back down from this, and I will not assent to being called a swiftboater.

I won't go so far as Gregory "Deke Rivers" Humphrey and call for Zielger to drop out of the race. I won't even go so far as Bruce Murphy and suggest that now she's unelectable (I won't underestimate the power of the state's business lobby and all the TV airtime they can buy). But I also won't let clear ethical lapses and clear violations of an enforceable code of judicial conflict go without comment. Even if it means trading in my baggy shirt.

Who's polling the Milwaukee school board elections?

by folkbum

I got an email the other day related to a poll of my district (where I support Terry Falk) saying that there was apparently a poll being done:

They are asking whether you are voting for Falk or [incumbent Joe] Dannecker. They are also asking if you knew that Dannecker supported vouchers whether that would increase or decrease your chances to vote for Dannecker.

There was some speculation about who was doing the poll, and whether it was a group that was supportive of vouchers or not. (I said not; I didn't think that wording, though it may not be verbatim, was the kind of language a pro-voucher group would use.) In any case, we were to be on the lookout and try to find out who was responsible for that poll.

But as it turns out it's not just this district that's getting polled. Alan Borsuk--education reporter for the Miwaukee Journal Sentinel--also got a call:

Sunday afternoon at home. The phone rings.

I’m conducting a survey, the voice says. If the Milwaukee School Board election were held today, who would you vote for, Stephanie Findley or Michael Bonds?

I’m not going to give you an answer, I say.

I’ll put you down as undecided, the voice says. Do you support or oppose the Milwaukee school choice program?

I’m not going answer that, I say. But I have a question for you: Who are you calling on behalf of?

Let me ask my supervisor what I can tell you, the voice says. He comes back on after a few moments and gives a corporate name.

Who’s that? I ask.

A private research company, he says.

And who hired you to do this?

You’ll have to talk to my supervisor.

After a pause, the supervisor comes on. I repeat the question and add that, to my knowledge, under Wisconsin law he has to answer the question of who is behind the calls if the recipient of the call asks.

We’re a private research firm, he says.

But who hired you to do this?

The line goes dead.

This is, of course, a violation of Wisconsin law--any group being paid to survey an election must identify who is paying for that survey.

So this is your mission, folks: If you get the call, ask the same questions Borsuk asked, and try to get a name. You can even tell the "supervisor," if you get him on the line, that refusal to answer the question is a violation of the law, and see if that helps.

Non-Theists in the news

by folkbum

We were teased last week about the possibility that a member of Congress would "come out" this week as an atheist. Turns out to be California Representative Pete Stark:

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a member of Congress since 1973, acknowledged his nontheism in response to an inquiry by the Secular Coalition for America (www.secular.org ). Rep. Stark is a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and is Chair of the Health Subcommittee.

Although the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, the Coalition's research reveals that Rep. Stark is the first open nontheist in the history of the Congress. Recent polls show that Americans without a god-belief are, as a group, more distrusted than any other minority in America. Surveys show that the majority of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president even if he or she were the most qualified for the office.

On a related note, I will direct you, as I so often do, to digby's blog, but not a post by digby. Poputonian notes Stark's announcement, and reminds us of the history behind the "no religious test" portion of the Constitution. It was put there deliberately, and the founders knew what they were doing when they added it. So the next time you hear a Mitt Romney demand that this country needs to be led by a "person of faith," ask him where, exactly, he thinks the authority for that comes from.

Ziegler's Conflicts Multiply

by folkbum

I'm going to slightly disagree with my friend Ken about Jessica McBride's comments on Judge Annette Ziegler. My instinct is to agree that somewhere along the way the Wisconsin State Journal should have noted that Madison attorney and Supreme Court candidate Linda Clifford had done some work for them. But I don't think that changes for one second any of the facts now on the table, facts largely put there by the WSJ. What they reported (both previously and this past weekend) is no less true than if it had been reported somewhere else; it's just that WSJ did the legwork first.

I will agree with Ken's second contention, though, that McBride's "everybody does it" defense of Ziegler's conflicts of interest is no defense at all, especially since Ziegler seems to have done it more often than others.

I do believe that this will be the make-or-break issue for the race, since there's just no way Ziegler can get away from the issue now. Couple that with the fact that Linda Clifford actually used to sit on the judicial ethics panel, and you've got some clear choices to make.

On a side note, while we were in between TiVos last week, we caught a Wisconsin Manufacturer's and Commerce commercial for Ziegler, which tried to say she was tough on crime. It included the line, "In fact, Ziegler sentenced one sex offender to 60 years in prison." My wife laughed out loud and said, "Just one offender? That doesn't make her look very good."

The Karl Rove Caucus

by folkbum

Karl Rove and his pals have systematically set out to make Republicans with integrity an endangered species.

That's from digby over the weekend. Digby may well be the smartest man on the intertubes; even so, you might think that, perhaps, his thinking about Karl Rove is just so much hyperbole.

But it's hard not to think that he's dead-on. Digby specifically is writing about the suspicious firing of eight US attorneys who weren't playing the game right. (Look, I know that Clinton fired all of Bush I's appointees. But Bush II fired all of Clinton's appointees. So shut up about that.) When you weigh the evidence--as digby does with, for example, David Iglesias--you see people of high moral and ethical standards railroaded out (thanks to the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act) in favor of toadies, in one case, literally, a Karl Rove protègè. And elbow-deep in those firings is Rove himself. (More from Josh Marshall.)

And it's hard not to think about Rove's influence on contemporary conservative politics when you read things like this post from David at Carrick Bend (language warning, via Wiggy). It isn't so much David's use of the Coulter f-word (and his defense of her use of it), but rather his demonization of conservatives who thought Coulter crossed a line there:

Who are you idiots again? Conservatives? Hell no. You are flaming liberals.

The single worst insult David can think to throw at people who don't meet his infantile standards of conservatism is liberal, though none of the targets of his wrath come close to being accurately described as such. But this is a clear Rovism; demonize everyone who disagrees with you, until you have no allies left. There's a reason Bush's poll numbers haven't seen the bright side of 40% in years, and it's this attitude--perpetuated at the White House by Rove. If you keep cutting off people who might be your natural allies, you end up pretty lonely. Some day the Carrick Bend guy is going to look around and wonder where his friends are.

Well, him and Karl Rove.

Bouncing Baby Blogger Jr.

by folkbum

Aaron and Kelly had a baby. You can see its little finger reaching for the keyboard to start griping about something already. Welcome aboard, kid.

McIlheran Watch: The hits--and by hits, I mean untruths--keep coming about Libby

by folkbum

I'm starting to wonder if perhaps Patrick McIlheran will grow to regret that he decided to blog about the Scooter Libby trial and verdict this week. For starters, of course, there was "an error"--his words--from Tuesday. (The Brawler seems unwilling to give McIlheran the benefit of the doubt enough to call it "an error," even with the "sarcasm quotes" that McIlheran seems so "fond" of.)

Even after he corrected the "error," many falsehoods remained in that post of his--the most falsest of them being the notion that Scooter Libby didn't do any leaking. I will quote from an email he sent me* about what lies, exactly, Libby was convicted for telling (the "he" is Libby):

He didn’t lie to cover up leaking Plame’s name since he didn’t leak Plame’s name. He wasn’t the source of the leak.

This assumes that there was one "the leak," the one to Robert Novak, a leak we now know to be perpetrated by Richard Armitage and Karl Rove. That leak prompted Novak's writing of this op-ed on July 14, 2003. And, no, Scooter Libby had nothing to do with that.

So a more accurate iteration of McIlheran's sentence might be,

Libby didn’t lie to cover up leaking Plame’s name to Novak since he didn’t leak Plame’s name to Novak. He wasn’t the source of the leak to Novak.

And if that were that, there'd be no problem. McIlheran would be telling the truth and we could call it a day. But Novak was not the only reporter leaked to, and Armitage and Rove were not the only leakers. So his email to me--as well as his assertion Tuesday that "Libby isn't the guy who gave away Plame's identity to the press"--is patently false.

Does McIlheran forget why Judy Miller went to jail? It's because she wanted to keep secret what she would eventually testify to:

Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified in the Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial today that in a private meeting on June 23, 2003, at the Old Executive Office Building, Libby told her that Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked for "the bureau."

"I quickly understood he was referring to the CIA," Miller said, believing that Libby, the then chief of staff to Vice President Cheney who is charged with lying to investigators about when and how he first learned of Plame, was referring to the agency's nonproliferation bureau. Miller gained fame two years ago when she was ordered to jail for refusing to reveal who told her that war critic Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

Her testimony directly contradicts Libby's assertion that he first heard about Wilson's wife from NBC's Tim Russert nearly two weeks later. Russert, who is also expected to be called to testify, has flatly disputed Libby's account.

"Two weeks later" would have been just before Novak's op-ed, but Libby knew, and was blabbing to Miller about it, long before Novak published it. In other words, Libby leaked, to the press, in direct contravention of what McIlheran may believe or write on his blog.

Today, though, there's more. This time, he outsources the lies to others. He starts by quoting some genius at Townhall, complaining about how someone may option the Wilsons' story for a film:

“According to a Senate inquiry,” Tyrrell writes of Valerie Plame’s husband, “this mellifluous gasbag lied about findings regarding the Iraqis' pursuit of uranium in Niger. He lied when he suggested that he went on a mission there at the request of the vice president. And again he lied when he claimed that his report on Niger was circulated at the highest levels of government. In all three lies he got caught. Yet, he has emerged as a liberal icon. That sounds like a Hollywood movie to me.”

This is one of the oldest of the Plamegate lies, that Joe Wilson's original July 6, 2003, op-ed was somehow itself predicated on lies. You can read Wilson's op-ed for yourself, and see if any of the things this Tyrrell says is true.

Take the "went on a mission there at the request of the vice president" line. Read what Wilson actually wrote, and see if you can find where he says that Cheney sent him:

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake--a form of lightly processed ore--by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

You'll notice in there, too, that he was going to find out about a particular report--a report that, indeed, the same "Senate inquiry" called bogus. (You can read the Senate Select Intelligence Committee's findings on this massive web page, and numbers 12-26 are about Niger. You can see that the Senate did not call Joe Wilson a liar, or even suggest that he was misleading. It says the CIA interpreted his intelligence differently than he did in his report. But the documents he went to learn about are still referred to as "forged.")

This Tyrell writes that Wilson "lied when he claimed that his report on Niger was circulated at the highest levels of government." Again, here's what Wilson wrote:

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

If the CIA didn't follow the procedure Wilson expected them to follow, he can't be accountable for that, can he? Where is the lie?

Among the evidence that came out at the Libby trial was that talking points like these were developed by the Vice President's office the day after Wilson's op-ed ran in the New York Times, and you can, in fact, see the .pdf of the talking points Cheney's secretary typed up for everyone to use. And now, almost four years later, those talking points, developed by Cheney and Libby specifically to discredit Joe Wilson, keep popping up, and people just don't even bother to check whether they accurately reflect what Wilson really wrote.

McIlheran also cites such paragons of moral authority as Jonah Goldberg (who blames Wilson himself for outing his wife, which was the whole point of my debunking on Tuesday) and Bill Bennet. Bennet, in particular, makes the laughable assertion that we should subpoena journalists for "revealing" the already-public SWIFT program, for example. Sigh.

So . . . there you go. McIlheran really needed to pick a different topic this week. Sure, it was the big news. But he doesn't help his side by spreading these kinds of long-debunked lies.

* In general, my email policy is that anything you write to me is off the record and won't be published out of concern for your privacy, unless you tell me otherwise. In this case, though, those two sentences comprised the most concise statement of McIlheran's Libby theory I could find, and were not different from his published comments.

Oh, My Dog! Non-theism in the news

I suppose it's been a big week for the people of my (non)faith. After suffering through a long stretch of fights over just how Christian a candidate for president has to be to get elected, it's nice to get some more uplifting news.

For example, I hear the mint is finally making coins just for us:

An unknown number of new George Washington dollar coins were mistakenly struck without their edge inscriptions, including "In God We Trust," and are fetching around $50 apiece online. [. . .]

Bailey said it was unknown how many coins lacked the inscriptions. Ron Guth, president of Professional Coin Grading Service, one of the world's largest coin authentication companies, said he believes that at least 50,000 error coins were put in circulation.

"The first one sold for $600 before everyone knew how common they actually were," he said. "They're going for around $40 to $60 on eBay now, and they'll probably settle in the $50 range."

Although once again we're being discriminated against: We have to pay fifty bucks for a coin worth one that we can't even put in a vending machine. But at least they're trying, eh?

Then there's also the big Supreme Court case this week, brought by Wisconsin's own Freedom from Religion Foundation:

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by a group of atheists who claim the Bush administration's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives violates the separation of church and state.

It's just one example of how atheists are becoming increasingly assertive — arguing not only that religion is false, but also a threat to civilization.

Outside the court, atheists and people of faith squared off. Inside, the Freedom From Religion Foundation made its case against the president's pet program.

The foundation's co-president, Dan Barker, was a fundamentalist preacher for 19 years. Now, he's preaching from a different text — specifically, "separation of church and state, and reason and kindness in place of superstition and ideologies."

But Barker and his wife, Annie Laurie Gaylor, who is also the foundation's co-president, said the problem is bigger than the Bush administration and its faith-based initiatives. They see a world being torn apart by religious fundamentalists of all stripes.

"[Religion is] the source of the greatest violence in the world," Gaylor said. "More people have been killed in the world for religion over any other reason."

This is why the FfRF is not our best spokesgroup (I prefer Americans United for the Separation of Church and State). But I do commend them for taking on the faith-based initiatives office. It's not that I oppose tax dollars being spent by rligious groups--as long as the work they do with that money is secular in nature, i.e., feeding the hungry and housing the homeless--but rather I feel those groups should be treated no differently than non-religious organizations that do the same things. Establishing an office explicitly to solicit proposals from and grant money to faith groups crosses a line.

But the most interesting news of the week may well be this:

On Monday, March 12, the Secular Coalition for America, a national lobbying group representing Americans who do not hold a god-belief, will make history by announcing the name of the first open nontheist member of Congress.

We make a big show of not requiring a religious test for office (what with that being in the Constitution and all), but in practice you just can't get elected in this country without outward demonstrations of faith, particularly Christian. I mean, good for Keith Ellison and everything, but how many thousands of members of Congress have served in the last two centuries before we elected a single Muslim?

The comment thread at that post is also interesting with plenty of speculation about which member of Congress will "come out" as non-theist, including a couple of Wisconsin's Congresscritters. Barney Frank is the favorite, though. I guess we'll find out Monday.

Gut Check? Gut Check?

by folkbum

That's where the truth comes from, ladies and gentlemen—the gut.

Did you know that you have more nerve endings in your stomach than in your head? Look it up. Now, somebody's gonna say “I did look that up and it's wrong.” Well, mister, that's because you looked it up in a book. Next time, try looking it up in your gut. I did. And my gut tells me that's how our nervous system works.

That, of course, is Stephen Colbert defining "truthiness" for you--rather than reliance on, say, facts, you rely on your gut. This is not to say that you should never trust your gut on anything; usually, though, you do a "gut check" on matters that mostly just affect you.

Judge Annette Ziegler, apparently, uses the "gut check" in her courtroom:

In two campaign stops Monday, Supreme Court candidate Annette Ziegler repeatedly defended her choice as a circuit judge to preside over dozens of cases involving a bank with which she had personal and financial ties.

Ziegler said she uses a "gut check" to decide if she has a conflict of interest. Her husband's position on the bank's board of directors didn't affect her judgment in the cases, she said.

"If someone took an objective look at any of those cases, any judge ruling on those would've ruled the exact same way," Ziegler said. "There's no difference who hears those cases. It would've been the exact same outcome."

Trouble is, rules governing judicial conduct don't allow for "gut checks." And I for one am glad that those rules exist: If I am appearing before some judge, I don't want to know that she's done her "gut check" to decide whether she can hear a case fairly. I want to know that there's no chance at all that she might rule unfairly.

There's something particularly galling in these cases where she's got a conflict of interest (and the number of cases keeps growing; if you read to the bottom of the article linked above, you'll find she's got conflicts with United Health Care, in addition to the West Bend Savings Bank cases, first reported by your humble folkbum two weeks before the media got ahold of it). It's not that I question whether, as she stated, "any judge ruling on those would've ruled the exact same way." That may very well be true, and as I'm not privy to everything that went down in all of those cases, I simply cannot judge whether they were decided correctly. Rather, it's that Ziegler didn't bother to make the parties aware of her conflicts at all.

As I said, this violates rules of judicial conduct, period. It bothers Ben Brothers, too, and he points to another disturbing aspect of the article linked above:

The law doesn’t necessarily require recusal, but it does require that a judge with a conflict of interest reveal that conflict to the litigants, and give them the option of waiving the recusal. Needless to say, Ziegler didn’t follow that rule, either. [. . .]

In Dodgeville, the most pointed questioning came from Elsa Greene, of Barneveld, a former deputy of the agency that regulates attorney conduct. She held a copy of the Supreme Court rules.

Said Greene: “Do you consider the rule applicable to you?”

Ziegler responded, “I am a good judge.”

Well, I’m glad we cleared that up. Ziegler, by the way, is the “strict constructionist” in the race. It seems to me that, at the very least, a commitment to strict construction--as opposed to a commitment to movement conservatism--would require one to follow the letter of the law, and not rely instead on a “gut check."

Any judge, no matter what their political perspective or understanding of constitutional theory, has to answer Yes to a question like “Do you consider the rule applicable to you?”

Mobile's Take and Xoff also have problems with this, as does the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's editorial board. Both Jim Rowen and Dave Diamond caught the Colbertiness of Ziegler's statement, and Dave reminds us that Ziegler's campaign manager is Mark Graul, who seems to be repeating a losing strategy here. Which is fine by me.

McIlheran Watch: We can power Al Gore's house with that spin (Libby trial)

by folkbum
UPDATED below

Unless you've been in a salt mine all day, you've probably heard that Scooter Libby got convicted for lying to investigators and the grand jury in the investigation into the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson's name to the press, possibly as retaliation for her husband Joe Wilson's truth-telling about the way intelligence got fudged in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Let me repeat that: Scooter Libby got convicted for lying to investigators and the grand jury.

Unless you live in Patrick McIlheran's fantasy world, that is. He blogged today, "Libby guilty. Of something or other."

Lewis I. "Scooter" Libby may spend one to three years in the sneezer for ... for... for whatever he's guilty of.

Even the jury wasn't apparently sure, and they did the convicting.

Formally, it was that Libby, a top aide to Vice President Cheney, lied to the FBI when it was trying to find out who "revealed" the "secret" identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Media Matters anticipated this kind of spin, and you can read their pre-emptive strike for some specifics about how what McIlheran is shrugging off as "something or other" is actually a relatively big deal.

But McIlheran here is spinning so hard he lets fly with an outright falsehood--something he usually manages to avoid, relying instead on innuendo. [See important UPDATE below] But today he writes:

Plame's "cover" was long before blown: Her identity as a CIA employee--presumably, this was the secret that Libby or Karl Rove or someone else let out of the bag--was mentioned in her own husband's Who's Who entry. Read more on it here.

I've included McIlheran's links in case you don't believe me. But this is, in fact, a blatant lie. You can look at Who's Who entry for yourself, where, yes, it does give Plame's name. But, significantly, not her occupation. When you read the links, you find Bob Novak's admission that he "learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in 'Who's Who in America.' " Her name, not her occupation.

Further, Patrick Fitzgerald made it clear that Plame was covert in filings that Libby didn't contest. In addition, the CIA has since revealed that she was working for a front company (Brewster Jennings, which Novak also named), doing work on WMD, particularly Iran's nukes. The revelation of Plame's name tanked all of that, and Libby's lying during the investigation made it more difficult for Fitzgerald to ferret out the truth.

(I dealt with this exact same lie last summer when a certain blogger I won't link to anymore--at least not since he called me a Nazi--spread the same lie.)

UPDATE, Wednesday morning: McIlheran has removed the offending paragraph I quote above from his blog post, and replaced it with this:

Libby isn't the guy who gave away Plame's identity to the press. Her identity as a CIA employee--presumably, this was the secret that Libby or Karl Rove or someone else let out of the bag--was mentioned by another administration official that we now know was Richard Armitage, a State Department guy who was generally skeptical about the war. Her name Novak got from her own husband's Who's Who entry. Read more on it here.

I've again included all of McIlheran's links. He maintains the original paragraph was "an error," though I would be more likely to believe that it was really a mistake if the same falsehood hadn't been making the conservative rounds--and getting throroughly debunked--a year ago.

Even with that paragraph changed, there remains quite a lot of spin and falsehood, including the statement that Scotter Libby and Karl Rove didn't give Plame's name to any reporters: Armitage told Novak, sure, but it is well documented that Libby told Judy Miller and Rove told Matt Cooper. His implication that Libby and Rove didn't do any leaking is still untrue (perhaps "an error"?).

And he maintains that Plame wasn't covert. But this is belied, again, by a number of facts, including the fact that CIA director George Tenet referred the case to the Justice Department in the first place: If the CIA didn't feel that its operations had been damaged by the leak, why would it have asked for an investigation?

The drawlin' Hillary smear

by folkbum

Driving to work yesterday, I heard clips on NPR of speeches by both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who spent Sunday morning a few blocks apart at different churches in Selma, Alabama, observing the 42nd anniversary of "Bloody Sunday." I remember thinking to myself, hearing those clips, that Obama spoke with the cadence of the black church much more than he usually does. During the Hillary clips, though, I didn't notice any departure from her usual style of speech. (Listen online to the story hear for yourself, and see if you agree with me.)

So imagine my surprise when toodling around the internet last night to find that conservatives are complaining about Hillary's put-on Southern drawl. They were all playing off something on the Drudge report (Drudge? Smearing a Clinton? No . . .). To its credit, the right Cheddarsphere didn't bite, either claiming it was more Forest Gump or even, yes, defending Hillary. For my part, I thought, first, "Didn't Hillary spend a couple of decades in Little Rock? Is it that strange, then, that she could speak their language?" But I was still kind of confused, given that what I heard on my radio wasn't drawly and all.

But then Greg Sargent cleared it up for me:

But as always, a simple fact-check shows this latest wingnut preoccupation to be highly dishonest. The audio clip Drudge linked to cherry-picked that quote and removed it completely from its context, which would have shown that Hillary wasn't adopting this accent or grammar or language as her own at all.

Rather, it turns out that Hillary was actually quoting the hymn lyrics of someone else--while clearly and very openly imitating (not very well, it turns out) the cadences she thought the lyrics would traditionally have been delivered in. [. . .] Hillary's real sins here were being corny as hell and painfully tone deaf. But phony this wasn't.

Never ones to pass up a good smear, the right has been playing up this story and the media have veen falling for it, too.

If we have another year (or 20 months) of this to look forward to, it's going to be a loooooong campaign season.

Monday Miscellaney

by folkbum

• Our TiVo
  2003-2007
  Rest in Peace
  
• The Brawler writes about unions so I don't have to. All youse who are afraid of imaginary union goons (like the scary 300 pound men of Paul Noonan's fevered imagination) are apparently unfamiliar with the facts.
  
  
• Speaking of studies that burst conservatives' imaginary-world bubbles, it turns out that immigrants--including illegal ones--boost pay more than prison populations.
  
  
• Who would have guessed that I'm in the top ten for a Google search for hamburger helper turning in my wrench for a fork?
  
  
• The Cheddarsphere's own Sean Hackbarth has been the point man on what I see as a too-little-too-late campaign to distance the genteel right from Ann Coulter. (If you don't know why Coulter is in the news again, just Google it up.) I say too-little-too-late because Ann Coulter is now and has been for a long time a known quantity. Yet I didn't see Sean boycotting the convention; rather, he was quite glad to go despite knowing that Coulter would be there even after her as-offensive remarks from last year.
  
  Blue Texan pointedly asks Sean why it took so long, especially given that her remarks this weekend were tame by comparison to her previous hits. Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog has reports from the same now-aghast bloggers reporting on how much that very convention loved Coulter before the speech.
  
  It is often said that there is basically nothing a prominent right-winger can say that will get them ostracized (although someone should ask David Brock about that). And I predict that there will be little change to Ann Coulter's media status after this past weekend.
  
  Oh, and what Digby said.
  
  
• Anyone who thinks that the crisis at Walter Reed is somehow indicative of government's inability to deliver health care should read this and this.
  
  
• Who knew that Rick Esenberg's done more drugs than I have? And I'm a cymbal-banging leader of the drum-circle left!
  
  
• This is from the same massive conservative conference Ann Coulter befouled. I don't entirely know if the picture is fair, but it's kind of funny. I got it from here, but the site's currently under a denial-of-service attack by those genteel righties.
  
  
• I can't believe people aren't embarrassed to death to do things like this. Saying one night, about Mitt Romney's Mormonism, "We created a new religious litmus test. This is very troublesome to me, and no other candidate is getting that scrutiny." And then saying the very next night about Barack Obama, "Now, a closer look at the church's vision has led many to call them separatist and, in some cases, even drawing comparisons to a cult." How does his brain not explode?
  
  
• And, saved for last because my head might explode: I actually agree with McIlheran. Althouse, however, continues to befuddle me.

For those whose calendars remain insufficiently marked

by folkbum

Here's something to do tomorrow night:

Fundraiser/Rally for Terry Falk
Candidate for Milwaukee Public School Board, District 8
Tuesday, March 6, 7:30-10 p.m.
Club Garibaldi, 2501 South Superior Street, Milwaukee

Emcee: Milwaukee's liberal media establishment, Dave Berkman
Entertainment: David HB Drake and band Dangerous Folk will play songs from their No Child Left Behind CD (preview online at CD Baby)

Remember that in the primary two weeks ago, Terry Falk finished first, ahead of the incumbent, MPS board president Joe Dannecker, 44% to 37%. It is time to rally and support Terry before the general election April 3.

All campaign contributions appreciated. You may contribute securely online via PayPal or credit card at Terry's website or send your contribution to Katharine Falk, Treasurer, 3606 S. Pine Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53207.

Troha, Doyle, and Campaign Finance Reform

by folkbum

Dennis Troha, while innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, probably did some illegal things. I say this not because I have any kind of special knowledge of what went down, but because Steve Biskupic doesn't usually bring indictments against people he can't convict.

It looks like Biskupic is going to get Troha for contributions to Jim Doyle in last year's governor's race. The pattern seems to have been that Troha "loaned" family members and employees money to cover what those others gave to Doyle's campaign. The Trohas were able to bundle the contributions together into one easy-to-pick-up pile of checks for the Doyle campaign.

This is not a pattern unique to Doyle; check out the Trohas' contributions to Paul Ryan, the congressman who represents them down there in Kenosha. Even the "unemployed" Lynn Troha was able to chip in $2100 (the maximum) to Ryan's re-election bid; I have a job and couldn't afford to give anyone that kind of money. But many of those checks were all written on the same day, and I wouldn't be surprised if they came bundled in one nice big pile for Paul Ryan's campaign staff to pick up.

So let's be clear who's been indicted and who's on trial here: Dennis Troha. Got it? Not Jim Doyle, whose campaign seems to have done nothing illegal or more unethical than calling a donor and saying, "Hey, Dennis, can you raise some money for us?" Not Paul Ryan, whose campaign may very well have made the same phone call.

There are some legitimate questions about whether the Trohas' money bought influence--in other words, one has to wonder whether Paul Ryan's intercession on Troha's behalf on the casino project came because of the money, or whether Doyle may be more likely to approve that casino because of the money, and what, exactly, Troha may have gotten from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, whose members also got his money. That kind of influence peddling is much harder to prove than, say, giving your family money so you can skirt campaign finance laws, or outright bribery that involves handing over large sums of cash that a congressman then keeps in his freezer.

But even if Ryan, Doyle, Don Young, or Jim Oberstar did or will pull some strings for Dennis Troha, that's still not illegal. Unethical? Maybe. Unseemly? Most certainly. But not a violaton of the law.

Seth Zlotocha has probably the best reaction to this that I've seen--including a lot of great discussion in the comments--and I think he nails the problem quite sqarely:

this issue isn't just about casinos. It's a problem that pervades public policymaking. Unless the plan is to stop elected officials from setting public policy--in other words, doing their job--then no amount of futzing with the legislative process in relation to the campaign donation process is going to change the fact that elected officials are accountable first and foremost to those who help their chances at re-election the most. That is, those who give them the most amount of money.

The solution, rather, is to focus on the pay side of pay-for-play. If politicians are going to be accountable first and foremost to their donors and the goal is to make them accountable first and foremost to the public, then you need to make the public their donors, plain and simple.

This is an argument I have been making for a very long time now. But people on the right--including the Charlie Sykeses and Mark Bellingses who unfortunately drive so much of the political discourse in this state--see this as not Exhibit A in the case for campaign finance reform, but rather a chance to accuse Democrats, and only Democrats, of wrongdoing.

James Wigderson, whose solution to the Troha mess seems to be to spread authority out, perhaps to make sure more officials get big bucks from the likes of Troha, often laments that Democrats--and he names Russ Feingold in particluar--have succeeded in making money in politics de facto dirty. I remember his statement to that effect at the "Download 2006" event, and being amazed at the audacity of it, because at the same time as he was complaining about how we now perceive any campaign cash as dirty, every other conservative panelist that day assured us that Doyle was dirty because of the way he could be bought off with campaign cash. In other words, big-dollar campaign contributions aren't a problem, unless, of course, the money goes to Democrats.

But they are a problem. They have been and will continue to be a problem. Just the very thought of anyone, let alone Dennis Troha's unemployed relatives, being able to give $10,000 a shot to a campaign turns my stomach, and probably a lot of other people's, too. It leads to cynicsm and, as the ever-astute Recess Supervisor put it, it makes "people assume ALL politicians are dirty. So when one of them gets caught, it serves to affirm the public's perception of ALL politicians, not just Republicans or Democrats."

And that, I believe, is the crux of the matter. Doyle got caught here doing, what, exactly--obeying the law? And it has everyone crying foul. That means, to me, that it's the law that needs to change. Even, as I've suggested before, cutting the maximum contribution to a state-wide race from ten flippin' thousand dollars to something normal people might be able to pony up, one or two thousand, maybe. Or, more radically, as I've also suggested before, moving to a state-funded system like Arizona's or Maine's. The nice new ethics entity our lawmakers created to watch over themselves will remain toothless to address issues like the one involving Troha as long as what Doyle (or Tommy Thompson before him) does remains legal.

So go ahead, you righties, and demand Doyle's head on a stick (and Paul Ryan's, too, if you want to be consistent). You won't get it this time, the same way you didn't get it from Georgia Thompson, because Doyle's behavior here is not illegal. But at some point you need to recognize that crying foul on all these things will only make you hoarse. Or, like the boy who cried wolf, the public will finally tune out everything you ever say about scandal and corruption. (There are only so many people you can accuse who then walk away--since they did nothing illegal--before people stop listening.)

But if you'd rather make a difference, perhaps it's time you stand with those of us who see the problem for what it is--an institutional one--rather than hope to make partisan hay out of it. The only way to stop the Dennis Trohas of the future or, for that matter, the Jim Doyles of the future, if you must think that way, is to change the system that perpetuates them. It's time for campaign finance reform now.

Ziegler's misconduct: I was right

by folkbum

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about how Judge Annette Ziegler, the non-partisan Repulican candidate for state supreme court, suffers from a big fat conflict of interest. I wrote:

Since 2002, Judge Ziegler has presided over nearly four dozen cases involving [the West Bend Savings Bank, from whom her husband draws a paycheck]. An intrepid correspondent of mine actually took a tour around the Washington County Courthouse and checked the casefiles on about a dozen of the most recent cases, and there was no evidence of notice given to the defendants in those cases of the possible conflict of interest. This, of course, leads to speculation that the three-dozen prior cases were also filed away without any mention of such notice.

The comments to that post were rife with know-it-alls telling me that it was No Big Deal. (I was even accused of perpetuating a smear!) Despite that, twixt then and now, the charge picked up steam, with the Milwaukee Labor Council and One Wisconsin Now piling on. Still, those of us who raised concerns were told we were wrong about Ziegler.

Enter the Madison's conservative newspaper, today:

Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Annette Ziegler failed to disclose a conflict of interest in at least four cases over which she presided as a circuit judge in the past year, interviews and court documents indicate.

Failing to disclose a conflict would put a judge in violation of rules enforced by the high court.

All four cases in 2006 involved people sued by West Bend Savings Bank, where Ziegler's husband, J.J. Ziegler, is a paid member of the board of directors.

The defendants said the Washington County Circuit judge did not withdraw from the cases--nor did she disclose her conflict--as required by Supreme Court rules governing the conduct of judges in Wisconsin. [. . .] James Alexander, executive director of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, said the rules governing judges' conflicts of interest are designed to ensure the credibility of the judiciary.

"An impartial judge is a cornerstone of the judicial system," Alexander said. "It's protecting not only the impartiality of the judicial system, but also the appearance of impartiality."

Read the article; we're not just talking about small claims petty business here. In at least one of the cases, the judgment was over $10,000. This was not, as some of my commenters tried to reassure me, "foreclosures and loan defaults [that] often proceed by default." The defendant in that $10k case is now mighty steamed that at no point in the five months of appearances in her courtroom did Ziegler say, "Oh, by the way, I may have an interest in how this turns out." I don't know what that guy's options for appeal may be, but I hope he makes one.

So what does this mean? Besides my being right, of course. It really calls into question the ethics of Annette Ziegler. Mark Graul, her campaign manager, refused to let her speak to the Wisconsin State Journal reporter doing the story. Graul's no dummy; there's probably a reason why the candidate can't speak about this.

Say what you want about (folkbum-endorsed) Linda Clifford's philosophy--and, believe me, people are--but no one has yet found any examples of Clifford engaging in the kind of iffy ethical practices that we see Judge Ziegler clearly exhibiting here. Remember this on April 3.

Walter Reed Hospital vs. Kerry "Joke"

By Bert

The Gen. J.C. Christian has a graphic displaying the lack of interest by right-wing bloggers in the shabby treatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. But, now that the general mentions it, as a matter of fact it is not much of a story around here among the big names in the limburgersphere either.

Owen at Boots & Sabers, to his credit, does make a post. But Charlie Sykes and Jessica McBride do not that I can find mention this disgrace at their WTMJ blogs. And Charlie did not include it in his promotion of the Sunday TV show.

To be honest, I am not fond of this common but tawdry tactic of decrying what some media outlet does not cover -- as if in this age of the info blizzard you can cover everything.

But I'm doing it anyway this time, and here's why. Remember the moral outrage in the name of defending the troops that Charlie and Jessica aimed at John Kerry and his insult that wasn't meant to be an insult? If memory serves, that prompted some blog posts.

Update: Jessica McBride weighed in on this Sunday evening on her blog with an earnest statement that veterans deserve the best care our country can offer. She mentions Lincoln, but not Bush.

Update II: As it turns out, the neglect and poor treatment of wounded veterans has caused some real pain among at least one right-wing operative. Brit Hume of Fox News, for example, is troubled because this looks bad for Republicans.

The Al Gore's house papers

By Bert

All I can divulge at this point is that the story begins with a document accidentally left on Monday in a copy machine at the Kinkos on Farwell and State. The discovered document was immediately stuffed down the pant leg (a technique learned at liberal democrat officer training school) of a folkbum operative. And then ensued a series of furtive transfers of said document. The paper was finally transferred to me last night over a formica tabletop while concealed in a George Webb menu just before the bartime rush.

Here, released for the first time, only on Folkbum, is the content of that document:

Talking Points Central Command
"semper on message"

Week: 2/26-3/2

You are tasked for the entire week (think Weekly Deep Tunnel Awards for Friday)with communicating that Al Gore has a large house that uses electricity. Include in your message commentary about Al Gore’s weight (note: this does not remove prohibition against mentioning the physique of Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Dennis Hastert, or Rush Limbaugh -- see memos dated 1/25/00, 4/25/85).

Talking up Al Gore’s house is a tactic that furthers these key strategies:

• Protects corporate profits at the expense of polar bears (note: do not mention polar bears)by sliming any effort to conserve energy without trying to deny all that science and stuff.
• Furthers the impression that the only elite aristocrats in this country are liberal democrats and intellectuals. To enhance effect of this tactic, also mention that Dick Cheney hunts and that Karl Rove serves hot dogs at his fundraisers. Finally, play Toby Keith or Martina McBride as your bumper music.
  
  As always, any updates will be transmitted through Drudge Report. That is all.

This time, it's personal

by folkbum

Yes, it's the sequel, the return, the revenge, the electric boogaloo--the do-over for those who somehow missed it last year.

WisPolitics.com and WisOpinion.com, in conjunction with the fine folk down to the Marquette University Law School (including new spokesmodel Mike Gousha) are planning a blowout extravaganza for BlogFest 0-7!!!! or, as they would probably prefer I call it, the 2007 Blog Summit. The vitals:

Wisconsin Blog Summit II
Saturday April 28, 2007
10 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Marquette University Law School
Third Floor, Sensenbrenner Hall
1103 W. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

The event is free, but you need to pre-register (info at the link above). Hope to see you there!

This is going to blow some minds

by folkbum
UPDATED within!

It'll blow righty minds, that is:

District attorneys around Wisconsin rarely claim sick leave, allowing them to boost their retirement benefits like lawmakers, judges and other state elected officials.

Last year, just one of the 62 district attorneys who get state benefits claimed sick leave, according to records for all but the last three weeks of the year.

Like other state employees, district attorneys may buy health insurance in retirement with unused sick leave. For former Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher, in office for 18 years, the benefit is worth over $158,300, more than for any of his peers.

Bucher, of course, is a hero to many of the Charlie Sykes Stormtroopers down here in the Milwaukee Media Market; recall, for example, the Right Cheddarsphere's lauding of Bucher's "crackdown" on vote fraud, a crackdown that consisted of a single plea-bargained case in two decades of District Attorneying. And it's the Charlie Sykes Stormtroopers who have been among those beating the drums loudest for the end to these sorts of accumulated sick-leave bennies for elected officials. Puts them in an awkward spot, I would bet--especially since the anti-Bucher, former Milwaukee County DA E. Michael McCann, has no sick leave benefit at all.

(I have occasionally wondered, though not out loud, of course, why Jessica McBride is the only WTMJ radio talker not to have gone off on sick leave, and now it kind of makes sense: She's married to $160k of sick leave benefits. LATE UPDATE: Oops, I guess she has!)

Look, I've made my case before. I understand that there are people on both sides of the aisle who disagree with me--conservatives who feel the benefit is too much for our budgets and unrealistic compared to the real world of the private sector; and liberals who can't believe lawmakers are willing to perk themselves but won't fix health care for the rest of us.

But the fact is that I have been, and will remain, consistent here: Paul Bucher could probably have made three, four, eight times his DA's salary working in the private sector (the coming years will undoubtedly be his most lucrative now that he's out of public life). If part of what kept him in the job--a job that our conservative friends think he did well--is that he knew he could pay a portion of his health care costs in retirement with accumulated sick leave funds, then that incentive worked, and we kept a solid public figure in office doing work for we the people.

I don't want to ignore the question of whether he legitimately accumulated those days; he might have, I suppose, skirted some of the ethical bounds that compel people to call in sick when they are, in fact, sick. But I don't have enough information to judge whether that really happened and, from my reading of the article, neither does the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. They seem perfectly happy, though, to keep claiming scalps of all ideological stripes in their never-ending war on sick leave benefits.

In the meantime, pass the popcorn--some righty heads may be exploding Thursday. (It's days like this I wish I could listen to Sykes . . . wonder what he'll say?)

More MPS School Board News

by folkbum

• District 2: While it may be embarrassing for Joe Dannecker to have the names of the schools in his district; it's completely another one to run afoul of campaign finance laws:

Oddly, [Progressive Majority Wisconsin's] crack research team hasn’t been able to find six campaign finance reports Spence was required to file with the Milwaukee Board of Election Commissioners since 2000.

For someone who campaigns on integrity and transparency, these failures are not insignificant.

• City-Wide: Ken Mobile checks Bruce Thompson's finance report, and thinks Thompson may have been fibbing a bit at a candidate forum earlier this month:

A finance report that was filed February 11, 2007 with Milwaukee’s election commission indicates that during the recent reporting period Thompson raised $15,950.00. Of that figure, $8,375.00 is from outside of Milwaukee and $3,300.00 is from out of state.

Interestingly enough, the question was asked during a School Board Candidate forum in Bay View on February 7th about his campaign finances. [Read my take on his answer here; listen to the audio at Terry Falk's site, track seven, with Thompson speaking first.]

Now, according to his finance report, Thompson is acting as his own Treasurer. I am sorry; I can’t buy “hasn’t done that analysis yet for this year” nonsense when he filed his report just four days later. After all, his campaign finance report is a list of who’s who of pro school vouchers and contains large contributions from many private sector CEO’s. Over 52% of his funding comes from outside of Milwaukee and over 21% comes from out of state. Many of these contributions where made well before the February 7th candidate forum; I guess he wasn’t in step with his finance report or had a momentary loss of memory.

Ken has more specifics about who some of those donors are. I'm not surprised by those numbers--or the names and occupations of his donors--but if he was obfuscating at the forum, he deserves to be called on it.

On the other hand, though, the emails that I get from Thompson's campaign pretty clearly list someone else as his treasurer. Here's a screen shot:That was from an email I received on February 9, right between the forum and the filing of the campaign finance report. So I'm not sure what to make of all of it, and whether the treasurer discrepancy wil end up being a problem. I know Thompson's campaign manager; if he wishes to respond, I'll accord him space.

Guess who's coming to Drinking Liberally?

by folkbum

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett:

The Mayor is scheduled to appear at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 28. Please show up early if you can. His office said the Mayor will discuss "the State of the City" with us. You can read his 2007 State of the City speech here, and please bring your questions for him as well.

Drinking Liberally is Milwaukee's social club for folks of the liberal persuasion. There's no cover charge or membership fee (although voluntary donations to help the national organization offset their costs are gratefully accepted!). People of all stripes come together at Drinking Liberally for a lively evening of socializing and social lubricant.

I may be late--I have a thing at 6:30--but I hope to see you all (and the mayor) tonight at Club G.

AirTran is not right for Milwaukee

by folkbum

Jim McGuigan is a smart guy and is usually right about a lot of things, and I often find myself nodding in agreement with his opinions. But the other day he asserted that the proposed AirTran buyout of Milwaukee-based Midwest Airlines would be "not bad for Milwaukee." I have to disagree. After expressing concern over Midwest's stock price, Jim writes,

The problems with [Midwest] aren’t just that the CEO, Tim Hoeksema and their other honcho, Carol Skornicka haven’t performed for the company--the problems are that they are focused on things other than their core business. Skornicka, a former Republican Governor Tommy Thompson appointee has dragged the company into politics, joining with Republicans to bash Democrats when the Republicans were in power of both the Governors mansion as well as the State Senate. CEO Tim Hoeksema has done his part too and a quick search of campaign finance reports shows that he’s been a big contributor to Republicans.

Midwest has lined up for years asking for handouts from Wisconsin also. Are we to now believe that this has been a good thing? We have used out tax money to help Midwest. [. . .]

Let’s take a quick look at what Midwest has done though in the past few years. Carol Skornicka pushed the failed “Blue Shirt” public art project only to have it implode in a public relations frenzy. Skornicka silently faded into the limelight and no one even knew she was part of the committee that suggested it. During a massive layoff masterminded by Skornicka and Hoeksema, they chose as their first department to axe, the quality improvement department. They then axed many other experienced employees and greatly reduced the amount of planes they fly that had their wide leather seats which made them a passenger favorite. They eliminated meal service, instead opting for a pay-per-meal option and kept only one of things that made them popular--the in-flight chocolate chip cookies. They [have] also had major labor disputes.

I can't dispute any of these things, but it's worth asking whether AirTran offers a better deal or not. That Midwest followed every other airline in the business to stop offering meals is disappointing, sure, but you won't get free meals on AirTran, either. And while not every Midwest flight has those wide leather seats, none of AirTran's flights do. The Midwest Connect flights are being upgraded to bigger, more comfortable planes of late, too--even they come with cookies now. And AirTran has its own history of labor disputes, particularly back when it formed from the remains of ValuJet--remember them? Couldn't be bothered with basic safety precautions so they had to change their name? Yeah, that's AirTran.

Jim's a partisan, and so am I. And while there's no question that those at the top of Midwest have given to Wisconsin Republicans (though Skornicka liked Kathleen Falk), AirTran is no better in that regard. And I'm not sure what Jim's thinking is behind his tax statements. Yes, Midwest has gotten tax breaks. But do you think AirTran, which would view Milwaukee as a critical hub, wouldn't also seek a break or two?

Stock price isn't everything, Jim (though the graph on the left--of AirTran's stock in the last two months--might be convincing). There is a real, if intangible, value in having a hometown company. Milwaukee would be a hub to AirTran, not its home. All the generosity of Midwest's charitable and civic activities would be lost. And while a few more flights and a handful more jobs may sound like a good offer, there isn't anything AirTran can do--not even their vow to keep serving those cookies--that can replace having Midwest at home in Milwaukee.

These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined

by folkbum

For Mike Mathais:

Whatever happened to Steve Guttenberg, anyway?

How well does Dannecker know his district?

by folkbum

Joe Dannecker has represented the 8th district on the Milwaukee Board of School Directors for eight years. This is his third campaign for the seat. And today, when I got home from a hard day of protecting our nation's youth from the plagues of ignorance, I had a little present from him.

An email I got a few weeks back described this particular piece of literature, and its delivery before the primary:

Joe Dannecker showed up at my door tonight. His opening line? "Sorry to show up like this." He handed me a flyer, which lauded his support for banning cell phones at MPS (which, as Terry has pointed out, had already been done, but never enforced). It also lauded Dannecker for his support for several MPS schools, including "Ronald Regan" (sic). Apparently, school board members are not subject to the same spelling and history standards as MPS students. The flyer also failed to include any contact information, so someone had scrawled a telephone number in magic marker next to poor Joe's name.

Here's a telling piece of the one I got today:

And, indeed, there was no information on how to contact the sitting board member. Residents of the district--particularly Joe's neighbors in Bay View--might also wonder where, for example, Bay View High School is on that list.

So, how well does Joe Dannecker know his district?

(And, yes, I've sold my soul to Terry Falk and everything.)

Monday Miscellaney

by folkbum

• Unsolicited plug: Guido G's Pizza, 13th and Morgan, 383-7776. Best. Pizza. Ever. Blows the chains out of the water.
  
  
• See why Ken Mobile is fast becoming one of the best new local bloggers.
  
  
• Speaking of Jessica McBride, one thing has confused me for some time about her WTMJ blog: When you click on this header----you get redirected to . . . Charlie Sykes's blog. There's probably something to that.
  
  
• Get your hands off me, you damn, dirty ape! (Or, more elliptically:

  McArthur Parker: Have you ever heard of "Planet of the Apes"?
  Troy McClure: The movie or the planet?
  McArthur Parker: The brand new multi-million dollar musical! And they want you to play . . . the human!
  Troy McClure: That's the part I was born to play, baby!)

  
  
• All snarkery aside, this seems to be a tremendous misapplication of justice:

  Julie Amero was a substitute teacher who found herself in a pickle while teaching a class of 12-year-old boys.
  
  The school computer in her classroom, which she had been told not to turn off under any circumstances, and which had no virus protection, spyware protection, and was running a 9-year-old operating system, started popping up porn ads. Not just one or two, but loads.
  
  When Julie tried to click them off by hitting the little X on the top corner, more popped up. And more.
  
  With the kids clamoring for a look, Julie tried to block the screen from them, but there were too many, so she ran out to the teachers' lounge and asked for help.

  And for being a victim of Windows 98, she could get 40 years in prison. There's plenty more to get you angry at the link. And it's not a joke.
  
  
• I know you've probably already seen the Conservapedia by now. If you haven't, you should take the time to get to know it before it is completely overrun with graffiti--it's hilarious enough now. (Here's some of the less funny parts.) But here's what gets me: On the main page, they claim to be at least in part a response to the "anti-conservative bias" on Wikipedia. Among their examples of Wikipedia's bias, they include things like "Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words" (particularly British spellings), and that biographical entries are often gossipy. Neither of those seem particularly biased against conservatives. I don't get it.
  
  
• Al Gore won an Oscar, unless things go wrong for him at the Supreme Court.
  
  
• Just a reminder: Atheists (if I may be so bold as to speak for all of us) are opposed to neither morality nor religion. The problem is forking over my tax dollars to pay for expressions of that religion. How is that hard to understand?
  
  
• Here's one for all you people who can't write three words in a row without slipping into some sort of "Democrats and al Qaeda share talking points" hoopdedoo.
  
  
• Stoller explains why the adulterating, drag-wearing, gay-rights-loving, pro-choice Rudy Giuliani might still win:

  Like a lot of us, [Josh Marshall] thinks that Republicans base their political judgment on issues, ie. gay rights, abortion, national defense, taxes, etc. He makes the same mistake that a lot of Democrats make, assuming that conservatives think the way that we do. They don't. They are authoritarians. Gay marriage, abortion, taxes, national security, none of it really matters to them. What they are looking for is an authoritarian to look like he's taking charge, and the way an authoritarian takes charge is to attack liberals and stomp on people who aren't like them. Giuliani did this in New York, so he's a rock star in Alabama.

Iraq, In Convenient Chart Form

by folkbum

Although I tend to agree with those who say that a candidate's ideas about Iraq right now are not all that relevant (really, even their ideas a year from now will be woefully out of date by the time a new president takes office in 2009), the New York Times has the rundown of where all the major party candidates stood in 2002, where they are on the "surge," and what they think about withdrawal, all in convenient chart form. It's worth a look.

Pop Quiz: Sykes, Iraq, and Selective Outrage

By Bert

This past week, while discussing a news item related to the Iraq War, radio talk show host Charlie Sykes used the adjective “disgraceful.” Which of the following news items was the one that Sykes thought needed to be condemned:

A. The quilty plea of a U.S. soldier in Iraq who participated with three other soldiers in the rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the murder of her and her family.

B. The hypocrisy of Dick Cheney, who applauds Tony Blair for starting to pull British troops from Iraq, but who says U.S. lawmakers who favor a U.S. withdrawal lack intestinal fortitude and want to help Al Qaeda.

C. Opposition to the war expressed by U.S. lawmakers.

D. The needless nature or incompetent leadership of the war itself, which in the past week cost the lives of another 14 U.S. soldiers, and who deserve better.

Time is up. Please put your pencils down now. The correct answer is in the comments.

You Know It's Serious

You know it's serious when the City of Milwaukee can't even afford to use all the necessary letters.