Ms. McBride is a professional pundit, don't try this at home

Boy, reporters and their ilk have thin skin. And I saved all my brickbats!! (the paper was getting tossed enough of them at that moment). Imagine if I'd thrown some!! Anyone who's read Brill's Content (I wish that mag was still around) knows how reporters react when they find themselves on the other side of the pen. They can't take it. It's pretty fascinating to watch.
- Jessica McBride, June 20th

In her 1033 word response to my humble 439 words below, Ms. McBride (I think it would be fair to say) takes offense at some of the questions I've raised. Perhaps it was a full head of steam that caused her to misconstrue my comments. Possibly. But the basic point I raised remains unanswered.

Jessica McBride states repeatedly her conflict-of-interest in defending the non-union employees is clearly spelled-out for both her readers and the viewers of Charlie Sykes' Sunday morning talk show. I did not argue that point, and would not argue that point except that when she addressed the issue directly on Charlie's show that she should have pointed out her own status as an affected individual. Had the issue been addressed separately as a topic rather than as a throw-away on the "Winners and Losers" part of the show, Sykes surely would have insisted on the disclosure. McBride has also been a panelist on Mark Belling's program in the past, and knows Belling is for revealing such conflicts of interest for his panelists. As a UWM lecturer on journalism, her unmentioned conflict of interest would be a text book example for her students were the subject someone else. Finally, as a journalist herself, McBride would certainly have advocated the spelling out of such a conflict of interest, even back when she was a college reporter for the UWM Post.

But, as I say, that was a point unraised by me, and I only raise it now in response to her defending herself against a charge I did not make.

All the disclosure in the world does not absolve the guilty.

The point of McBride's gratuitous slap at State Senator Tom Reynolds was that the Senator proposed legislation from which he would benefit (I believe to the tune of $300.00). In the same breath, seemingly without pause, McBride decried the proposed requirement that non-union state employees would have to contribute to their state pensions. She explains why in her response,

But, in context, what bothered me about this credit was the way in which it was passed: in the middle of the night, pushed by a legislator with a vested interest, and AT THE SAME TIME that the Legislature slammed public education/state workers. I do not think that was fair. How can the Legislature justify giving this tax credit for private education while at the same time gutting public education?

We'll forgive for the moment her hyperbole regarding the "gutting" of public education. After all, it's her ox getting gored.

I labeled her principled opposition to someone proposing legislation from which they would benefit the McBride doctrine. I then asked what the limits of the McBride doctrine were given that she has no compunction against advocating for legislation that would directly benefit herself, and that she was using to use her television presence and written columns towards that end.

Perhaps if I rephrased the issue in another way. According to the McBride doctrine, a State Senator (one that she "generally" likes and likes "what he stands for" no less) can be bought for $300.00. A political pundit and television personality can be bought for...?

Well, let's see. McBride acknowledges that she, too, would benefit from the proposed credit for private and home schooled children, to the tune of $400.00. But she makes the false statement that this credit comes only at the exchange of the proposed contribution to the pension, so she's willing to sacrifice the child education credit.

If the slam on public education hadn't occurred at the same time, I wouldn't have opposed the private school tax credit.

So the amount that McBride can be bought for, by her own stated principles, is the estimated $900 (her figure) average loss as a result of the pension contribution minus the $400 education credit, so roughly $500.00. Oh wait,

This affects my family twice. My husband is an elected official (a district attorney) and I am a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee lecturer (academic staff).

Well, my head spins from the math, but apparently those of the thin-skinned but higher principled schools of journalism have a higher price than a State Senator, even a State Senator McBride admires.

But wait! Turns out State Senator Reynolds will not benefit from his proposed tax credit after all.

State Senator Tom Reynolds (R-West Allis) says he proudly supports the Education Tax Credit included in the state budget benefiting over 145,000 private and home-based pupils and their families. If signed into law, 1 in 7 of Wisconsin’s children will benefit from the $100 Education Tax Credit that offsets educational expenses for private and home-based students. Senator Reynolds, who has children in public, private and home-based schools, says he won’t accept the tax credit if it becomes law.

In addition, the proposed contribution to the pension would cost the Senator $600.00. So apparently the Senator cannot be bought so cheaply, and is actually willing to personally make the financial sacrifice on behalf of his principles. We'll ask pundit McBride if she is willing to do the same.

Now, I'm not saying that I think McBride's principles can be bought. Nor am I saying that I like her proposed standard for being able to support legislation. But I do call into question her willingness to use any means at her disposal to defend her perquisites of the public purse while glibly skewering the reputation of a State Senator whose benefit from proposed legislation is less than her own interest.

Turning from that, let me address the issue of addressing her husband as Mr. Jessica McBride, at which she takes some offense I think. The reversal of the traditional use of the surname was intended to clearly identify McBride's connection to a declared political candidate, Waukesha District Attorney Paul Bucher, who is running for State Attorney General, in a toungue-in-cheek manner. Turns out, I'm not even the first to play along those lines.

I did not imply an unbalance of power in the relationship, and whether he is master of his home or a relationship submissive I leave to McBride to disclose in her blog. I have no interest in such matters, nor did I "slam" her husband for something she wrote. I indicated that her raising the issue of the tax credit in them manner that she did would be worthy of a question or two to her husband.

I repeat here the questions: 1) Is the newly proposed McBride standard the standard candidate Bucher would endorse? and 2) What is his position on the proposed tax credit, given that he may have to defend it in court if elected state attorney general? McBride rightfully points us to his website, and I would encourage everyone to ask those questions of the possible GOP nominee for State Attorney General. Or perhaps his opponent will ask the questions.

Full disclosure time, since I've now learned full disclosure frees us from any impugning of our motives.
1) I like the style and format of McBride's blog. I also read almost every word.
2) When McBride was a cub reporter for the UWM Post at UW-Milwaukee, I was the editorial editor of the rival UWM Times. Our paths crossed once, and I always meant to apologize for not giving her a straight answer. But since she asked the question the way she did, I felt free to answer accordingly.
3) I have met State Senator Tom Reynolds several times going back to when I was doing political work. Reynolds was a printing vendor for a couple of political operations I was involved with. I met Reynolds' children and one of them recited for me the "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." Reynolds started me thinking about home schooling my own children. Which reminds me, was there anyone who did not know State Senator Reynolds home schooled his children?
4) I think the sound effects I attach to Mr. and Mrs. Bucher in my blog are quite childish - and damned funny.
5) Given who McBride's husband is, I shall be ever more careful to put out the fire in my outdoor firepit lest the full weight of the Waukesha DA's office fall upon my little household.
6) My response is approaching 1500 words.