Lying Officials Or Just Bad Journalism?

by capper

Jay wrote a post about the bad economic news that has been hitting the papers and airwaves of late. In his piece, he linked to an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that discusses the number of applicants for food stamps and financial aid has jumped by ten percent while the number of economic support workers have been cut on a yearly basis by Scott Walker.

In the comments thread, I mention that I thought there were some errors in the story. Namely, that some of the improvements that were being planned had indeed actually happened.

To double check that I had my facts correct, I contacted some people familiar with the economic support program. These are people that are currently working for or recently left that department.

I asked them about the article. The part of the article which reads:

The Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services knows it has a problem and said it is trying to fix it.

The department is planning a modernization initiative that would allow people to handle their cases over the Internet and the phone, said Corey Hoze, director of the department of human services.

*****
In Milwaukee, the county also plans to go to digital documents. Each year, about 100,000 documents must be processed by the agency, Hoze said. That creates a big backlog for the county. Also, people often submit documents more than once if their cases aren't handled quickly, adding to the backlog. With the new program, documents would be scanned and saved electronically.

My contacts were able to confirm that they have been indeed using this system for the past year to year and a half. So why is the article written in the future tense? Is this the way the Corey Hoze presented the information to the reporter? Did the reporter misunderstand Mr. Hoze? Or is the MSJ trying to make it look better than it really is? Like a "Oh, it's bad now, but Scott Walker will fix it" kind of story?

Furthermore, the story quotes Hoze as saying that the County had to apply for two waivers so that people don't have to come in for an interview. This is an effort to save time from having to actually see the people and find out whether there is any fraud going on. To be fair though, the people I spoke to did complain that the story did not share that the County apparently recovered a large number of fraud cases last year.

I will be first to admit the obvious--I don't like Scott Walker. But my statements above aren't due to any sort of "Walker Derangement Syndrome". There are reasons why I am suspicious of the both Hoze and MSJ.

Hoze ran unsuccessfully for the 4th district U.S. Congress seat. He lost in the primary. Since then he has held a job under TOMMY in the federal DHHS and two positions in the Walker administration. This makes me wonder if he is acting just like another politician, trying to protect his boss, thus protecting his job or if there is something else.

It could be that the reporter simply misunderstood Hoze. Or it could be that the Journal Sentinel was trying to minimize the damage to Walker by minimizing the damage done by Walker. Heck, for all I know, they might have just been trying to play a gotcha game ont he county workers (one of Walker's favorite targets), but didn't put too much effort into it.

No matter what the cause of the false reporting, it is still false reporting. For what the MSJ is charging for their paper, the least they could do is report the news accurately and honestly, and not in the sense that Faux News presents themselves to be fair and balanced.

Michigan

by folkbum

Clinton and, I don't know, let's say, Romney.

McIlheran Watch: Spot the flaws in choice logic

by folkbum

Yesterday, there was some conversation around on the Milwaukee Parental Choice (the "voucher") Program. Milwaukee legislator Fred Kessler's been circulating a proposal to change mostly funding aspects of the program. (Some details are in this article explaining that Kessler's being stood up in a meeting with Governor Doyle.)

My BFF Patrick McIlheran weighed in on Kessler's proposal here. Unsurprisingly, he opposes it. But McIlheran engages in some twisted logic in defense of the voucher program. Early in his post you have this (my emphasis):

If I'm deciphering Kessler's prose correctly, he's saying that if a choice school takes in a kid and his younger brother is, say, autistic, the choice school has to take the autistic younger brother. Well: Choice schools already must accept "special needs" children [. . .] but they're not required to bankrupt themselves in doing so.

If I'm deciphering McIlheran's prose correctly--and given that's he's made this same set of arguments before, I think I am--he's arguing that voucher schools shouldn't have to spend a lot of money to offer services to special needs students. Indeed, they do not have to provide any services under state law.

Further down in McIlheran's post, though, is this (again, my emphasis):

Oh, and if the program does get killed, some of those 7,000 children will end up in MPS--where per-pupil costs to taxpayers total something like $10,000.

He's not wrong about the extra cost of an average MPS student. But as I have demonstrated before, the per-pupil cost of a regular-education student in MPS is not significantly greater than the value of a voucher awarded to a choice participant, even factoring in our union teachers and state and federal mandates.

Instead, it's the cost of students with additional needs--special education students, in particular--who drive up the cost of an average MPS student. And as we learned last week, MPS's superintendent is expecting as many as 25% of all high school students will be special education eligible within a few years. That number is certainly not helped by voucher schools who refuse to provide services (Hey! We can't make them bankrupt themselves!) forcing parents back into MPS where, under threat of lawsuits and the federal hammer, we have to spend two, three, sometimes ten times what it costs to teach a regular-education student. In other words, MPS is required to "bankrupt itself" to teach these kids!

So there's your choice logic: We can't make these voucher schools take expensive-to-teach students, because they don't have the money. And, hey, look at that, vouchers are a bargain! McIlheran is trying to have it both ways with a heads I win-tails you lose argument. It's a deal stacked against MPS.

Anonymity versus Psuedonymity

by folkbum

One of the most common dismissive gestures I read on the interweb blog-tubes goes something like, "You don't even have the guts to put your name on your opinions." It becomes a cudgel when all else--logic, reason, politesse--fails and an argument can't be won on its merits.

I have little sympathy for this argument, even when we're talking about truly anonymous comments. I allow them here, and for the most part it isn't a problem. Any given comment thread here has few to no participants calling themselves "anonymous." Even those who do generally remain within bounds of acceptable discourse.

Other blogs also allow anonymous comments, and, again, usually there's no problem with what those folks say. But my main beef with anonymous comments is easily demonstrable in, say, just about any long thread at Shark and Shepherd: You get a number of different people posting as "anonymous" and it's hard to keep track of who says what.

A much better approach, I think, is to go the pseudonym route--a blogonym, if you will--and label yourself with something readily identifiable. A good pseudonymous blogger or commenter is, in my mind, no different than one who uses his or her real name. You become a recognized entity as your pseudonym, so people can get to know you, what you write, and how you think.

There are plenty such pseudonymous bloggers and members of the commentariat on both sides of the Cheddarsphere, even more if you extend it to people using just a first name. I got no beef with them, and I don't particularly care if I know their real names or not. Resorting to that real-name argument is just dumb in such cases, especially considering the long history our country's political discourse has with pseudonymity.

County Overwhelmed by Those Needing Assistance

by folkbum

I'm sure Patrick McIlheran would tell you that this, too, is a sign of the booming economy, and you're all too busy believing the media hype to realize how great the economy is:

Milwaukee County's welfare office has been overwhelmed with a record number of people seeking public assistance and doesn't have the staff to deal with the crush.

For those seeking services, that means they wait. On the phone. At the welfare office. And they sometimes go without benefits for longer than they should, the Public Investigator Team found.

The county's budget for administering its income assistance program has shrunk by about $1.7 million, or 10%, since 2002, according to the state. But the number of people seeking food stamps has risen by about 10.5%.

There's lots of blame to go around for this--Republican legislators targeting Milwaukee County, a county executive unwilling to stand up to those legislators or meet the needs of his residents, a federal government pursuing welfare-for-the-rich strategies. However, let's all keep this in mind the next time McIlheran wanders through to tell us how fantastic the economy is. You can also remind him of the increasing Milwaukee foreclosure rate (mirroring national trends) and the skyrocketing consumer bankruptcy rates we've seen in the last year.

It has been since November that McIlheran has tried his "the economy is great" schtick, which I suppose might mean he's given it up. Or it could just mean we're due.

There Be Giants

But here be Giants Killers





















Anyone got extra tickets?

Good News for Milwaukee

by folkbum

I was wondering about this the other day, seeing the news of murders in several other places around the state, but I didn't say anything because, one, I wasn't sure I was right and, two, I didn't want to jinx it:

Twelve days into the new year, the city has yet to record its first homicide, police reported this morning.

That compares to three homicides reported for the same period in 2007, Milwaukee police Capt. Timothy Burkee said. Overall, 105 people were homicide victims in 2007, two more than had been recorded the year before.

What are the odds we can keep this up?

A Voice Made for Blogging . . .

. . . and a face made for radio.

by folkbum

Milwaukee's public radio station, WUWM (available at 89.7 FM on the radio dial--yes, people, there's an entire band of radio out there that is not AM!--and via streaming audio at WUWM.com), is doing a series this year on Wisconsin bloggers on their "Lake Effect" program. They are starting the series with a handful of political bloggers this week: I'm on Monday, Michael Mathias of Pundit Nation is scheduled for Wednesday, and Rick Esenberg of Shark and Shepherd will appear this week as well.

I'm apparently leading off the show Monday. Jane Hampden, the host and producer, begins the interview by saying I've been called Milwaukee's premier liberal blogger, or somesuch. That kind of threw me for a loop--I don't call myself that--and the rest of the interview just went downhill.

If you can't catch the show when it airs Monday at 10 AM and 11 PM, you can always listen to the on-line archives the next day.

Taylor vs. Walker: On The Budget

by capper

Ever since the pension scandal that swept Scott Walker into office, the budget for Milwaukee County has been a contentious issue. To be fair, Walker walked into a big pile of crap, thanks to his predecessor, F. Thomas Ament. There were difficult decisions to be made and bold actions needed to be taken.

Instead of making those decisions or taking those actions, Walker instead chose to allow the County to become decimated. When confronted on this, Walker would through up his hands and blame the pension. Even when warned of the pending exodus of County workers in 2004, and the large payouts that would be caused by this, Walker ignored these warnings and refused to plan for this inevitability.

During his entire tenure, Walker has refused to budge on his ill conceived promise of no tax hikes. Not only did he refuse to budge, but his only solution was to cut services. He slashed bus routes until there was a populist-type of uprising. He allowed the parks to deteriorate into brownfields. He denied services to the mentally ill until the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel did a whole series of articles exposing his neglect. He also cut services to those seeking help with their addictions to drugs and/or alcohol. He has crippled the courthouse and has diminished the presence of the Sheriff's Office until there was an outcry about the crimes going on in the parks. He has cut positions at the House of Corrections until the number of inmates escaping to commit further crimes, including murder, made its way to the papers. He has sold of highly-valued County property at sweetheart prices.

Now, Walker apparently feels that he has weakened the County enough. His newest proposals include selling off more of the dwindling county assets. What he doesn't sell off, Walker wants to now privatize, even though he was against it before. I am sure this will sell well with his shrinking base, but the latest polls show that it is not nearly as popular with the public in general.

In other words, he doesn't care about preserving what is left of the County, but would rather allow his pals feed off the carrion, and then boasting that he saved the average taxpayer a whole six dollars in taxes.

In contrast to Walker's scorched earth principle of budgeting, Senator Taylor has a whole different approach. While Senator Taylor is aware of the crush that the average taxpayer is feeling, she is also keenly aware of the importance to maintain the level of service and the quality of life that people want. She also realizes the larger cost that will fall on the County if proper standards aren't maintained. This is evidenced by her saying, "How does one take an infrastructure, not provide maintenance for it for years, and expect it to be OK?"

In the appearance I was able to attend, Senator Taylor outlined four things she would do differently.

First, she would assess the assets that the County has, and what would be the best way to utilize them. Just not what would win her political favor, or gain her support from the special interests, like you know who has been doing.

Second, she wants to get full funding from the State. She said that at budget time, she will be on the phone so much and visiting State legislators so much, that they "will think I am still a Senator." This contrasts starkly with Walker, who in last year's budget delays, planned on the Democratic version of the budget, while at the same time bad-mouthing it. And there was no evidence that he was trying to lobby legislators from either party to take the burden off of Milwaukee County taxpayers.

It should be also noted that during the last state budget, Senator Taylor has managed to get millions of dollars to come to Milwaukee County that wouldn't have otherwise. This money went to help the Milwaukee Public Schools, the Milwaukee County Transit System, Child Support Enforcement, and the courts.

Thirdly, Senator Taylor would regain access to federal monies that Walker has left on the table. She would apply for grants, improve parts of the county, and take other actions that would increase the flow of federal money to help keep costs to the average taxpayer down. Yes, yes, I know, federal money is still coming from the taxpayer, but keep in mind that this is money that has already been collected. It would be going to us, rather than other silly things, like protecting the Corn Palace from terrorists. (If the Senator is reading this, one thing that pops to mind is getting the mental health complex accredited again. This would increase Title XIX proceeds again. It used to be accredited, but Walker let that lapse, because it would have cost money to maintain proper standards to remain accredited.)

The Senator's fourth point is collaboration. She would work with the various cities in the County, the various school districts and neighboring counties to see where services could be combined to help defray costs.

The example she used for this point was cutting grass. The county has their own lawn mowers and people to operate them. Each city in the county, have their own people using their own machines to cut their properties. Each school district has the same thing going on as well. She said that she would try to join forces with the cities and the school districts to combine the pools of equipment and the staff members to run it, in an effort to help defray the costs, while maintaining a well-maintained community.

In summary, both candidates are focused on not raising taxes any more than necessary (yes, even Walker tacitly agreed for the need to raise taxes), but Senator Taylor's plan goes farther by also wanting to maintain the infrastructure, the same or better levels of services, and the high quality of life that people want.

To learn more about Senator Taylor, you can find her campaign's home page here. If you wish to make a contribution, you can do that on this site. If you want to help in other ways, this is the page that will help you join her team.

A Third Way Forward

by 3rd Way

Until recently it appeared as if Obama was willing to shun FoxNews in protest to their partisan coverage. It would spell doom for his candidacy if he were to do so. Fox has far too many viewers to disregard them completely. Although unable to continue them, Obama's actions sent a good message. Divisive partisan media of any stripe isn't worthy of our attention.

I pride myself in being an individual that attempts to pull my information from as many sources as I possible in the attempt to stay non-partisan. I certainly lean left, but I try to respect and appreciate the arguments of all parts of the political spectrum. I honestly belief that in nearly any political movement you can name there is a way to find some merits in some of their arguments. With that conviction in mind I fairly recently became active in what I would come to know as the cheddarsphere. In my travels throughout the cheddarsphere I encountered heaps of ridiculous partisan arguments, websites devoted to discrediting other websites and witnessed an individuals arrest for foolish comments. The thing I found most striking with the local blogs was the disrespect and outright hatred in the tone of much of the discourse. Throughout all of this I tried to keep my mind open and refrain from partaking in any sort of discourse I would not conduct if I were conversing face to face, although I was unable to always remain above the fray with my comments.

A local blog advertises itself with this: "DISCUSS IDEAS HERE, WE ASK THAT YOU KEEP YOUR TONE IN CHECK AND RESPECT THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO SHARE." In reality the blog functions the same way as most message boards you will encounter. The partisan vitriol boils over the instant a divergent viewpoint is heard. The attacks and insults thrown around would never be encountered if we led a purely analog existence. Anonymous digital communication has brought this incivility into our lives. Yesterday I became fed up with the intolerance of divergent viewpoints and vowed to stop wasting my time commenting somewhere that is not interested in fostering a productive debate. In my final comment I bid farewell and regretfully referred to the blog owner as a dolt and noted some of his observable physical traits. I had no intention of returning, but for this transgression I was banned from the website. This is the same website where I observed a commenter threaten (non-jokingly he assured) to break another commenter's legs. In that instance the offending comment was deleted without any acknowledgment that it had ever occurred nor any ban imposed on the commenter.

As the sole proprietors of their sites bloggers and their commenters are free to partake in whatever sort of shenanigans they wish. It is a harmless source of entertainment for many. When employees of the largest media conglomerate in the state start to play the disrespectful bipartisan games of the blogosphere I call foul. One of the most influential radio personalities in our state drew criticism from the community for promoting the offensive satire of a local blogger. My introduction to the blogosphere started with frequent and mostly cordial debate with a prominent editorialist for this same conglomerate. After a post that stated it was only a matter of time until the American left was siding with Jihadists I decided it was time to stop dignifying his partisan drivel with my audience. As consumers of media and participants in debate the only recourse we have to combat caustic bipartisanship is by refusing to participate.

The dichotomy of right vs. left / red vs. blue that frames every political issue has been detrimental to our political process and it is certainly detrimental to political discourse. Bipartisans among us will continue to disrespect, and not debate, the viewpoints of others if there is no consequence for their actions. If those of us that belief that neither side has all the answers were willing to adopt a third perspective, disregard the extremists and promote non-partisanship maybe we could someday see an improvement in online and political civility. We would all be better served if those that wish to sow the seeds of division and vilify those of divergent views were shunned by the rest of us. I will support anyone that sees a third way to approaches our partisan political atmosphere. Early in this presidential nomination process I knew who had my support.

Conservative Bias about Media Bias

by folkbum

The right-o-sphere is a-flutter over this:

NBC's Brian Williams took to MSNBC today at noon and had this to say:

WILLIAMS: I interviewed Lee Cowan, our reporter who covers Obama, while we were out yesterday and posted the interview on the web. Lee says it's hard to stay objective covering this guy. Courageous for Lee to say, to be honest. The e-mail flood started out we caught you guys, we never did trust you. That kind of thing. I think it is a very interesting dynamic. I saw middle-aged women just throw their arms around Barack Obama, kiss him hard on the cheek and say, you know, I'm with you, good luck. And I think he feels it, too.

For example, there's The Game ("Created to give example after example of media bias, left wing lies, and the PC world"), who said, "Give him credit for admitting what he thinks. Now if we could get the other 90% of the media that thinks like him to be honest maybe we can get somewhere."

Rick Esenberg opines (his emphasis), "Perhaps it is courageous to admit your man crush, but it would be professional for a journalist not to compound it by announcing that this candidate is so wonderful that we can barely hang on to our virtue."

I'll begin by pointing out that Brian Williams clarified his point:

Lee admits "...it's almost hard to remain objective..." which as he implies is our goal in our work every day. He's referring to what all of us who have covered campaigns have felt from time to time: it's impossible to get the long view...the view from 40,000 feet...while operating at sea level, and inside the bubble. Lee was talking about the swirl of excitement that has hit the Obama campaign after Iowa -- the crowds, the hoopla -- all of it.

Which is not quite the same as the fawning over Barack Obama that our Right Cheddarsphere friends presumed.

But that's not my point. What I find most bothersome about the whole affair is that as quick as the right has been to denounce this supposed pro-Obama bias (Game and Esenberg are not the only two by any means), they seem perfectly willing to let more blatant examples of bias slip by. Take this one, for example:

Hillary stepped onto the parked press bus in Indianola for about 90 seconds to deliver bagels and coffee, and I'm not sure what this says about Clinton and the press--the chill, I think, comes from both sides--but it was a strange moment. She expressed her sympathies that we're away from our families and "significant others," tried a joke at the expense of her press secretary, and paused. Nobody even shouted a question, whether because of the surprise, the assumption that she wouldn't actually answer, or the sheer desire to end the encounter.

One reporter compared the awkwardness to running unexpectedly into an ex-girlfriend.

"Maybe we should go outside and warm up," said another, as Clinton exited into the freezing air.

For our friends on the right it's horrible when a reporter covering the candidate gets caught up in the excitement of that campaign--even as that reporter makes it clear he's trying to keep an objective sensibility. Moreover, the right assumes that Cowen is representative of the whole media enchilada, that the press covering the campaigns is inherently pro-Democrat and anti-Republican. But the right's just willing to let it slide when the press covering Hillary Clinton hates her. And there's more:

As is so often the case, Maureen Dowd today unintentionally provides a perfect view of the core sickness of our press corps:

When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes.

A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it over and over, drawn to the "humanized" Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues cringed. "We are at war," he said. "Is this how she'll talk to Kim Jong-il?"

Another reporter joked: "That crying really seemed genuine. I'll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand." He added dryly: "Crying doesn't usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships."

Bill Clinton was known for biting his lip, but here was Hillary doing the Muskie. Certainly it was impressive that she could choke up and stay on message.

Dowd is describing here the conversation that took place in her "office"--which happens to be the newsroom of The New York Times--between what are undoubtedly very Serious Journalists, including one who covers (said with whispered reverence) "security issues."

This isn't even some second-hand reporting of a conversation on the bus. This is a premier columnist for the New York Times laying bare the hatred that press of all stripes--even the "liberal" NYT!--have for Clinton.

This rightie hand-wringing over Cowen is unimpressive, to say the least, when they are perfectly happy to let the press hate Clinton with abandon.

Psych 101

by capper

Dad29, a sometimes reasonable person, put up this picture and opened the comment thread for discussion.

My new friend, Billiam, put up this comment:

Hmmm, because 2 men holding hands is not natural. 2 men holding guns is an exercise of a Right Guaranteed by The Constitution. Now, no one is trying to ban men holding hands. Sadly, the same can't be said of a Constitutional Right.

Seeing that Bill is a conservative, this would seem a logical response for him. Wrong, but logical.

Wrong in the sense that just this past year, Wisconsin joined a number of other states in banning gay marriage. No states have banned the 2nd Amendment, although to be honest, there have been attempts.

But the answer to the question can be found in any Psych 101 text. It is a version of the fight or flight response. When people encounter something that is foreign to them, or that they don't understand, it is human nature for the person to feel threatened. When faced with a threat, real or perceived, it is also human nature to want to flee from it, or to fight it.

Since homosexuality is not the norm for most people, and many, including myself, can't understand the feelings that a homosexual person may be experiencing, it makes them foreign, and people have a hard time accepting that. Since the normal person would feel rather silly running everytime they encounter a homosexual or find themselves faces with the fact of homosexuality, they respond with fear, which leads to anger, which helps with distancing themselves emotionally.

I have had many gay friends. The man that married me and mrs. capper was gay, as was one of our ushers. We attend the usher's commitment ceremony. Even though I cannot understand the homosexual point of view, I can understand that it is not a threat to me, my masculinity, or my marriage. That is why I had voted no against the ban, and hope to see it repealed some day. It is nothing more than prejudice against gays.

But the thing that really prompted me to write on this subject wasn't Dad's post or Bill's comment. It was another comment by someone named Amy:

Yes, Billiam did (nail it), with an extension: we are also endowed with a God-given right to protect ourselves, and Catholic teaching recognizes that right beyond even the Constitution.

That only made me think of this:

People don't realize that change is a two-way street

by folkbum

All the talk about change in this presidential election reminds of the best change-makers I know.

Did you see what I just did there?

by folkbum

I jinxed it for both Obama and Romney. Kiss of death, I tell you. Kiss of death.

Senator Lena Taylor

by capper

I have written several posts over the last few months expressing my opinion about Scott Walker and the way he has performed (or didn't perform) his duties as Milwaukee County Executive.

Over the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to see Senator Lena Taylor at appearances, meet with her personally, and have had several conversations with her and her campaign manager, John Zapfel. I have asked Senator Taylor and Mr. Zapfel for her positions on many subjects, ranging from the general approach to how she would perform as County Executive, to specifics of each area, such as the parks, transit, corrections, and social services.
And yes, I even asked her about how she would pay for her ideas (and as the right-wingers will be disappointed to find out, it doesn't involve taxing the daylights out of people).

As time allows, and current events dictate, I will be writing a series of posts comparing Senator Taylor and Scott Walker, both on the similarities and differences in their positions. And as one may have surmised, even though I do have some concerns about Senator Taylor, she is, in my opinion, the far better candidate to lead Milwaukee County out of the path of self-destruction that it is currently on.

As I stated above, I have had the opportunity to meet with Senator Taylor, to see her address an audience live, and to have conversations with her. I found her to be very personable. While she is very vocal on her opinions and can be quite outspoken, she also presents herself as very down to earth and aware of what the average person goes through on a daily basis, including the struggles of child care, family crises, and the challenges of making ends meet.

She is respectful of the people she is addressing, even if they do not always return that same respect. She is very candid and open about some of the struggles she and her family has gone through in the past. She also speaks very lovingly of her mother, her brother and her son, Isaiah. You can compare her speaking style at this site and this one to the jilted, scripted approach of Walker's for yourself.

Senator Taylor told me that when she left Milwaukee to get her law degree in Carbondale, Illinois, she had vowed to herself that she would never return to Milwaukee. She said that she was "sick of all the '-isms'" in Milwaukee. However, after she left Milwaukee, she found that the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence, and that she still cared about Milwaukee and the people that lived here. That is why she came back, and started to work to make things better for everyone.

She also told me that it is her compassion for Milwaukee and its citizens that led her to make the decision to leave a cozy job in the State Senate to come back and run for County Executive. She said that she is aware of the frustration and anger people are feeling as they see the parks deteriorate, bus routes get cut, and the general quality of life going downhill. She also is aware of people becoming angry as Scott Walker continued to pander to his base and break promise after promise to appease his base.

To learn more about Senator Taylor, you can find her campaign's home page here. If you wish to make a contribution, you can do that on this site. If you want to help in other ways, this is the page that will help you join her team.

NCLB: Happy Anniversary

by folkbum

Or not.

We Have Met The Enemy...

by capper

I'm sorry, but this is too funny.

Walker has sent out an email updating his base about the election, and of course, to hit them up for money. Here is an excerpt from his newsletter:

With No Primary Election, Race IntensifiesOnly one other candidate for County Executive was able to collect the number of signatures needed to be placed on the ballot, and there will not be a primary election in February. This makes Scott the number one target of the old political machine, which is desperate to take over once again. In fact, our opponent and special interest groups in Madison and Washington, DC are preparing to spend $1 million to defeat him. They want to go back to a day when the County Executive wasn't held accountable - and they will do whatever it takes to win. In order to combat the negative attacks they are launching, we need your financial help today.

Despite the "special interest groups" being the unions, who could understandably be upset that someone would want to take away their jobs, and despite he is the one that went into the last quarter of last year with over $650,000, and that is why Senator Lena Taylor's made the statement about needing nearly $1 million, and despite that neither side has run one ad yet, is the great link. In case you missed it, the link identified as his opponent leads us to this article from MSJ:

Walker seeking another 4 years as exec

More cost-cutting planned for county

By STEVE SCHULTZEmailto:SCHULTZEsschultze@journalsentinel.com

Posted: Dec. 1, 2007

Rededicating himself as a conservative crusader, Scott Walker wants four more years as Milwaukee County executive so he can do more to streamline county services and cut costs.

Apparently, even Walker is endorsing Senator Taylor to be the County Executive.

New Hampshire

by folkbum

Obama and, let's say, Romney. The comments are open.

MSJ Endorses Walker

by capper

Well, OK, they haven't made an official endorsement yet. But today, the so-called "liberal" Milwaukee Journal Sentinel made their position known. First, there is the hatchet job attempted by Dan Bice.

Then the editorial for the day gets all mambsy-pambsy about Walker's privatization efforts, including giving him an entire article accredited to him praising privatization. Not bad for a supposedly liberal paper.

Of course, a liberal paper, or even neutral one, might have pointed out that Walker's statements on privatization haven't always been congruent or consistent. Or they may have given someone, like Lena Taylor, even space to rebut his wrong-headed argument.

I guess I shouldn't be so upset about it, they do have a history of doing this sort of thing.

For the idiots who try to tell me that Mike Huckabee is a Democrat

by folkbum

If he were a Democrat, he wouldn't be at the bottom of my freakin' list.

96% Mike Gravel
96% Dennis Kucinich
85% Chris Dodd
85% Barack Obama
84% John Edwards
82% Joe Biden
81% Hillary Clinton
75% Bill Richardson
33% Rudy Giuliani
25% Ron Paul
20% John McCain
15% Tom Tancredo
14% Mitt Romney
14% Mike Huckabee
6% Fred Thompson

2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz