Olbermann should stick to talking about cartoons

Video pulled due to error to site.

Actually, it was just one condition: Jim Doyle keeps to his word not to raise taxes.

Mark Belling was obviously joking when he made his comments about Mine That Bird. Was Doyle joking when he said he would not consider raising taxes? Or just lying?

The Left's disconnect (Plaisted Unbound)

I learned from him the bearing of a true professional man, the respect for opposing views, the value of informed argument and fair play.

Mike Plaisted, April 2nd

The classless, gloating radio and blog wing-nuts are having great fun this week grinding the salt of Louis Butler’s defeat into the open wounds of Wisconsin’s lost independent judiciary. When they aren’t childishly calling us whining losers, they are feigning outrage that anyone who tried to protect the state from WMC’s stack-the-court campaign would imply that the result of the Supreme Court election was anything but a reasoned choice of one "judicial philosophy" over another.

But they know what they did and what they do. The popping of champagne corks in country clubs, gated-community mansions and right-wing radio studios could be heard throughout the state – or at least in the North Shore and western suburbs – and throughout the nation, where the attack on the independent judiciary is driven (and funded) by the same devious greed-heads who brought you Junior Bush and the war in Iraq.

Mike Plaisted, April 3rd

You can almost picturing him reading his blog aloud at a podium, pounding it with his fists as foam is coming out of his mouth.

Can we just protest for good taste?

Radio talk show host Michael Savage is under fire for suggesting some hunger strikers should starve themselves to death. Of course, isn't that what hunger strikers are there for? To starve themselves to death if they don't get their way? And if that isn't why they are there, then whats the point? Yet somehow suggesting that hunger strikers actually carry through with their threat is tantamount to promoting hatred. If Savage arranged for a bunch of vegetarian pizzas to be delivered, would that have been in support of the protest or the act of a war criminal? I'm confused.

Let's face it. There hasn't been a really good hunger strike since Bobby Sands and no fat, happy American protestors are going to show that kind of perserverence. And if a radio talk show host or someone else mocks them for it, its hardly hate speech.

Now if someone wants to pass the plate to collect a few bucks to protest Clear Channel because Michael Savage's "Savage Nation" is just really bad radio, I'm in for $5.

(ht: Right from the Right)

Find classic movies at Amazon.com

It's all soooo unfair

In a preview of (if I'm keeping track right) the summer issue of the Wisconsin Interest, Charlie Sykes looks at the proposed re-instating of the "Fairness Doctrine" and comments,

Supporters of the Fairness Doctrine argued then, and now, that broadcast speech is uniquely subject to government regulation because it is carried over the “publicly owned airwaves.” According to this argument, the scarcity of spots on radio and television spectrum justified government regulation, exempted broadcast speech from the First Amendment protections enjoyed by newspapers, the internet, or disseminated on cable, or via satellite.

For “progressive” advocates of the Fairness Doctrine, broadcast stands alone.

But should it?

The First Amendment was written at a time when ideas could be expressed and disseminated in only two ways: through speech or through the press. The first amendment absolutely bars Congress from limiting either sort of expression. But progressives, who are usually enamored of the idea of a “living constitution,” ironically become the strictest of strict constructionists when they argue that because broadcast is not specifically mentioned, the government has the power to gag speech transmitted through the airwaves.

Can anyone seriously doubt that if radio had existed in colonial times, the Founders would not have extended the ban on government speech suppression to broadcast as well? By the constrained logic of the left that excluded broadcasting from constitutional protection, there is no constitutional authorization for the federal government to create an air force, since there were no air planes in 1787, and no such force is explicitly mentioned in the constitution.

But does the fact that broadcaster use “public owned airwaves” justify government regulation of the content of their speech?

Indeed, the argument that the airwaves are “public,” undermines itself. Far from granting the government greater powers for regulation, the fact that airwaves are public ought to give such speech even greater protection. Private individuals or entities can limit speech, but not the government: speech in a private mall or office can be regulated; but speech in the public square enjoys special protections, precisely because it is public, where the powers of the censor are the most tightly constrained.

You might recall I discussed the issue not too long ago,

Liberals see conservative dominance of one medium, talk radio, as problematic without seeing the dominance of other mediums by liberals as problematic. They also do not see that the different broadcast mediums are themselves in competition, and that dominance of one medium by a particular ideology is hardly a competitive advantage in this age of varied and niche media.

If the conservatives dominate talk radio and have a beachhead in cable news, it hardly constitutes a monopoly of political speech.

In the same column,

So now liberals are pushing the idea again the airwaves are a public accommodation and that in the "public interest" radio stations should offer balanced programming, wording taken from a 1969 Supreme Court ruling.

I’ve always thought of the "Public Interest" as a neo-conservative magazine. I never realized it really means the liberal agenda.

But it’s also language that ignores subsequent Supreme Court rulings in 1974 indicating the Fairness Doctrine really hampered public discourse and in 1984 that the scarcity rationale for regulating content of the airwaves was questionable. Given the current plethora of media outlets and the conservative cast of the Supreme Court, do liberals really believe their effort to dictate on-air content will pass the court’s scrutiny?

Find classic movies at Amazon.com

RIP Anna Nicole Smith

Anna Nicole Smith died yesterday. She was thirty-nine years old. You don't need me to tell you this as there is no form of the media that has failed to keep the voyeurist happy.

I had to laugh today when Charlie Sykes on WTMJ-AM wondered why "the media" were spending so much time covering Smith's death when she really had no accomplishments to list to her name. Sykes then admitted he watched her "reality" television program that showed the "trainwreck" (as Sykes put it) of her life. Sykes went into a commercial break that WTMJ used to promote
their "breaking coverage of news as it happens". The station promotion led with a clip about the death of Anna Nicole Smith.

We note with irony Smith's predecessor and (slightly more sophisticated) role model Zsa Zsa Gabor has been dragged back into the spotlight, complete with her eigth husband as a possible father to Smith's five month old child.

May Anna Nicole Smith have at last found peace with Our Savior and serve as a reminder that Heaven, or even material bliss, is not attainable on Earth. For all her fame and money, hers was a life filled with pain and a never ending desire to quell it. Whether it was drugs, money or fame, she could have it all. And still, it was an empty life.



Buy Wisconsin Stuff Now!

Limiting speech

My fellow Waukesha Freeman columnist Tim Schilke is taken to the woodshed by Rick Esenberg. Schilke believes that conservatives on the talk radio circuit not only have a moral obligation to shut up, but possibly a legal obligation. Esenberg takes Schilke to law school:

As Schilke acknowledges, in circumstances relevant to this question, the First Amendment prohibits the punishment of speech unless 1) it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444(1969)

If our talk show hosts had called upon the masses to rise up and stomp the poor fellow, he'd have a point. But criticizing someone - even harshly - does not qualify. Even urging people to let someone - say a politician or a business - know that you disapprove of some action they have taken does not qualify.

Buy Wisconsin Stuff Now!

27 for 2007

I make the following predictions in no particular order.

1. Governor Doyle will get one or two Assembly Republicans to join his administration.
2. The QEO will be lifted.
3. Revenue caps on schools and local governments will be loosened, but not eliminated.
4. Shared revenue will be cut further, except for counties.
5. The ethanol mandate will pass.
6. The State Assembly will not pass a conservative budget with tax cuts to challenge the Democrats.
7. Charlie Sykes will make up his mind on the Gay Marriage Ban.
8. Republicans will attempt to feed more misinformation to bloggers and get caught and called on it.
9. I will lose weight.
10. Senator Feingold will support a Bush nominee that will get little support from the rest of the Democrats in the US Senate.
11. Senator Kohl will ask a coherent question at a nomination hearing. He will even read it like he wrote it rather than sound like he's just reading what a staffer puts in front of him.
12. Milk at Senator Kohl's milk barn at the state fair will not go up in price.
13. Senator Feingold will call for the President to either be censured or impeached. Nothing will come of it.
14. Congressman Steve Kagen will again say something completely insulting to a minority group; it will be ignored by the media.
15. Taxes will go up.
16. Governor Tommy Thompson will drop out of the race for president.
17. WISN's Mark Belling will give credit to a blogger by name - once.
18. A serious scandal will involve the Doyle Administration, but no link will be found to Doyle directly.
19. Former Waukesha District Attorney Paul Bucher will appear on at least one local Sunday morning talk show.
20. The Wigderson Library & Pub will serve free drinks one evening for no reason.
21. The New Berlin School Board will remain in the hands of conservatives.
22. County Executive Dan Vrakas will easily win re-election.
23. There will be serious violence at a local festival in the city of Milwaukee.
24. There will be loud demands for Milwaukee Police Chief Nan Haggerty's resignation.
25. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett will set records for fundraising for a mayoral race.
26. Annette Ziegler will win the race for state supreme court.
27. The state legislature will raise the tax on cigarettes with bipartisan support.

26 for 2006 Looking Back

Last year I made 26 predictions for 2006, some tongue in cheek. I will not be mistaken for Nostradamus, but we should look back if only to laugh.

1. The Republicans will lose two seats in the Senate and a net gain of 1 in the House. Despite having control of the majority of governorships, the Supreme Court, the White House, and Congress, the press will continue to say the country is evenly divided.
Boy was I wrong on this one. "Next time, trust the numbers and can the wishful thinking." - Johan Hood, National Review Online "It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times"

2. Howard Dean will be dumped by the DNC by the end of the year.
Howard Dean fought the whole year with party leaders, but ended up a big winner.

3. Bryan Kennedy will not raise $1.5 million, or even $1 million, and will get less votes this time than last time against Congressman Sensenbrenner. Called this one correctly. In 2004, Kennedy got 129,384 votes. In 2006, Kennedy got 112,451 votes. He raised $312432.27.

4. The Wisconsin House and Senate delegation will not change next year, except in Green Bay where State Representative John Gard (R-Peshtigo/Sun Prairie) will succeed Congressman Mark Green. Whoops. Second Assembly Speaker to crash in that district.

5. Tim Michels will run against Herb Kohl. He will not spend as much as Kohl. Kohl will win in a landslide. Hey, Owen told me he was running.

6. Kohl's landslide will not help Governor Doyle, who loses to Congressman Mark Green. Right primary winner, wrong result. "I'm an elections lawyer retained in connection with a matter before the Elections Board" - Michael S. Maistelman

7. Justin Sowa will not get the necessary signatures to run in the Democrat primary for Congress in Paul Ryan's district. Jeff Thomas will take up smoking before a Democrat beats Paul Ryan in that district again. Sowa did not run, and I guessed the right primary winner. Ryan won easily.

8. Reversing my early thoughts on this race, Peg Lautenschlager holds on to beat Kathleen Falk in the primary only to lose to Paul Bucher. Bucher will not run an ad with the police video of Lautenschlager's drunk driving arrest but everyone in Wisconsin will see it on the internet before the election is over. (I expect to be able to link to it in July.)
Early thoughts are best. Van Hollen (an answer to a trivia question this time last year) defeated Kathleen Falk, no matter what TMJ4 news tells you.

9. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel will have to deal with two major internal scandals. One will be uncovered by WISN radio's Mark Belling, and the other by Michael Horne or Bruce Murphy. Um, no.

10. The Republicans will retain control of the state legislature, but losing two state senate seats will rattle the nerves over in that caucus causing them to replace Dale Schultz as majority leader. Look for Mary Lazich to make a run for the position. Um, no, but Schultz is out as Minority Leader.

11. The Republicans will retain the State Senate seat currently held by the outgoing Cathy Stepp. The Republican State Senate will spend too much time, effort and money to hold onto the seat. Define "too much."

12. State Senator Tom Reynolds will not have to face a primary opponent and will win re-election handily. No primary opponent, and then disaster.

13. Brett Favre will not retire. Steve Mariucci will be the head coach by the end of 2006. Favre did not retire. Mariucci should have been named the head coach.

14. Bill Parcells will not retire in Dallas. Jerry Jones will offer him whatever it takes to keep him. So far, so good, but I sense that Parcells' defensive coordinator better look at the want ads.

15. The Milwaukee Brewers will be within five wins of last year's record and miss the playoffs. Missed it by that much.

16. The Badgers football team will have a losing record next season. Who are those guys?

17. Charlie Sykes will have a blogger on his regular Sunday morning panel show (not a special) other than Jessica McBride or Owen of Boots and Sabers at least once next year. (McBride will continue to be a regular panelist.) Does Deb Jordahl count?

18. Mark Belling will say something else that will cause WISN management to have to negotiate with protestors. He inked a contract extension.

19. Nothing will come of the "scandals" surrounding Jim Doyle, other than a few editorials and a few campaign ads. There will be no prosecutions of anyone in the Doyle administration. Missed by one. Georgia on my mind.

20. The ethanol mandate will pass and be signed by Governor Doyle. Blogosphere and talk radio stall this disaster for one year. Can we do it again?

21. TABOR will not get out of committee next year. TABOR didn't. TPA did, sort of, in a form weaker than the governor's budget freeze. Republicans look like idiots. Nothing passed. If anything, I was too optimistic. Far better if the damn thing had died in committee.

22. The people responsible for slashing the tires of Republican GOTV vans in 2004 will not see any jail time and will be working on Democrat political campaigns in 2006. Too easy.

23. Milwaukee elections will be a disaster again. In September.24. There will be more murders in the City of Milwaukee in 2006 than in 2005. Turns out there were more shootings in Milwaukee this year but there were fewer fatalities. All the people with good aim must've been killed last year.

25. Hollywood will make less money next year than this year. I was closer than I thought. "If not for the US$423-million domestic haul of Depp's "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," Hollywood would have been dead-even with its lowly box-office results of 2005, the worst year for movie admissions in almost a decade." - Associated Press, 12/25/06

26. Taxes will go up for most people in the state.
Well, yeah.

We have a winner

Okay, Reince Priebus is not a blogger, but he definitely deserves special mention on the Tommy Thompson Suck-Up Watch. Priebus was on Charlie Sykes this morning as a panelist and named Tommy Thompson Winner of the Week for "following his dreams" by opening an exploratory committee to run for President.

And for those that are wondering, Jay Bullock's post does not count, although it is worth mentioning. It's like me hoping Kucinich is the nominee for the Democrats.

I guess the grown-ups weren't watching

Dear Dave Diamond,

Couldn't agree with you more that the main agenda item for Democrats is to demonstrate that the "grown-ups" are in charge. I'm sure we'll see marked improvement in the maturity of debate by the Democrats and their blogging supporters.

I'm especially looking forward to no longer reading things like,

Meanwhile in local news, the Milwaukee noise-o-drome and the out-state Sensible Republicans are arguing over who should run the Assembly: Mike "Next In Line" Huebsch, Dean "Bar Keeper's Friend" Kaufert or Leah "Yes, That Is Charlie Sykes' Hand Up My Ass" Vukmir. I'm rooting for the wingnuts because I want a Democratic Assembly in two years, although that doesn't diminish my appreciation for RS' argument on behalf of the Sensibles.

I'm not sure what you will do with all of your newfound spare time. Maybe you can help Judy Robson answer the "douchebag" letters.

Sincerely,

James M. Wigderson
(aka, the Stay-Puft Waukesha Man)

When the Goths sacked Rome

I listened to some talk radio today and spoke with a few people about the election results last night. I gotta say, I think a little perspective is needed by the callers and a few other people. I don't think Sykes, Belling, Wagner and Weber were out of line at all. But Charlie Sykes even had a lady call in to announce, "the Republic is dying," and that she was flying her flag at half mast.

I know it was a nasty blow on both the state and the national level for Republicans. I know the thought of "Speaker Pelosi" makes some of us twitch like Herbert Lom every time he heard, "Clouseau." I know Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sounds more like a character from "Debbie Does Washington D.C."

And I know that closer to home, the only time the phrases, "four more years" and "Jim Doyle" should go together is when a judge hands down a sentence.

But it's not that bad, especially in Wisconsin.

We're going to get an ethanol mandate. Guess what? We were probably going to get one anyway. At least this time it won't be the Republicans scheduling the bill.

Taxes are going to go up. They did under the Republicans and now they will under the Democrats.

We're at status quo on stem cells and cloning, and it looks like we're going to be stuck there. It makes me unhappy, but it could be worse. We could be Missouri.

On the national level, no matter how bad the current crop of Democrats is, I remember Speaker Jim Wright. I remember Congressman Ron Dellums and others hanging out with the Communists in Grenada. I remember Dan Rostenkowski. I remember Howard Metzenbaum and Alan Cranston.

As the great Obi-Wan Kenobi once said, "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy." This current bunch of Democrats are a bunch of chumps compared to that rogues gallery from the 1970s and 1980s.

I'm just not going to lose any sleep over this bunch. The republic will survive. Wisconsin will survive. I'll have plenty to write about. As the Democratic Party philosopher Michael Stipe once wrote, "It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine."

Nobody asked

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D) on Sunday Insight with Charlie Sykes said the Wisconsin Supreme Court dropped the ball when they did not rule on Mark Green's challenge to the State Election Board ruling declaring over $400,000 in contributions had to be returned.

Barrett also said he was not asked his opinion on the issue. Remember, Barrett (D) was allowed to transfer his congressional fund to his campaign for governor, the same thing Mark Green did, but now the state elections board claims thats against the rules.

Patrick at Badger Blogger has posted the video.

Quick endorsement talk

Charlie Sykes weighs in on the pointlessness of newspaper editorials. He then writes on how he plans to vote, but still declares himself undecided on the gay marraige amendment. C'mon Charlie, time to get into the game on that one.

Opposition to Sobran speech receives publicity

WTMJ's Charlie Sykes would be the most prominent:

As with Kevin Barrett, the issue is not whether {Sobran} should be censored, it's whether he should be sponsored, paid, and given a platform that confers a modicum of credibility. This continues a critical conversation that has been going on for more than 50 years: is anti-semitism a legitimate part of modern American conservatism?
If conservatives can't draw the line with their own wingnuts, how do we hold the left responsible for embracing their whack-jobs? The decision to invite Sobran was a huge lapse in judgment (aren't there any other credible speakers out there?) and a potential embarassment for the sponsors of the Forum.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Spivak & Bice ask, "So is he an anti-Semite or what?"

Blogger James Wigderson sparked the cyber-debate Saturday morning - coincidentally, the Jewish New Year - by blasting the conservative Wisconsin Forum's decision to bring in columnist Joseph Sobran to speak in Milwaukee on Sept. 28. On his blog Wigderson Library & Pub, he says Sobran continues to "promote his anti-Semitic views and has associated with Holocaust deniers."

Wigdgerson {sic} then takes aim at Owen Robinson of the blog Boots & Sabers for saying the event "would be a blast to attend." That's when the fun begins, with numerous people posting charges and counter-charges in the responses at both Boots & Sabers and Wigderson Library & Pub.

Brian Fraley agrees with me, and asks where is his decoder ring? Troy Fullerton heard Mel Gibson is busy Thursday, so Wisconsin Forum picked Sobran. Mike Mathias answers whether this a First Amendment issue. Grumps at the Happy Circumstance reminds us of the burdens of free speech,

Sobran is the flip side of Kevin Barrett. A free society has a stake in allowing these fools and worse to say their piece. Government has no place denying them their right to spew bile, venom and filth into our society.

However, the people of a free society has to accept the responsibility of being free. It is up to us to condemn and bullyrag those who foul our society with their nonsense. It is incumbent on a free people to stand up and say, "This shall not pass in our society."

And special thanks to Wisopinion.com for linking to me.

This is not to say that my view has unanimous support, much to my disappointment. Rick Esenberg believes that Joseph Sobran won't upset the horses.

As for Joe Sobran, my impression is that he is an intelligent writer who says stupid things about Jews and Israel. Its hard not to think that there isn't a black part in his heart, although Buckley has denied that this is so.

But I am not a fan of imposing orthodoxies on who can be invited to speak - particularly after the speaker has been invited. There are some people with bad opinions who make no sense. They cannot be engaged because they are uninterested in the rules of rationality. Ward Churchill, Kevin Barry and homophobe (the word fits here) Fred Phelps are examples. There is no point in inviting them to speak because discourse is not possible.

I am not convinced that Sobran falls into that category. I think he is almost completely wrong about what I take to be the premise of his talk, i.e., that "the Jews" (as if they are a monolithic body)have taken over conservatism. But I don't know that he is incapable of linear thought or that the subject itself is beyond polite company.

I'm not sure what rational dialogue can be had with Sobran given that longtime colleagues tried and failed to talk Sobran away from his obsession with Israel and Jews before sadly conceding Sobran needed to be pushed out at National Review. Since then he has only gotten worse.

Bill Christofferson says, "Let the wingnut speak."

If we give the Nazis a permit to rally at the State Capitol, these conservatives certainly can invite whomever they like.

Is this a great country or what?

It's amazing Christofferson's laughter didn't cause any typos.

Blogger Dad29 has been especially critical of my efforts, going so far as to lump my criticism of Sobran in with my criticism of the 33rd assembly district in electing Scott Newcomer. I dislike Democracy and I dislike free speech, apparently. If I were half the wit Dad29 claims that I am, I might suggest he is the first Post Modern Conservative.

I promised to give Owen Robinson's response, and Owen's response is incredible.

Geez… I step away for a few days and people start slandering me as an anti-Semite for this post. I’m not going to dwell on it because readers of this space should know that I am not. If y’all don’t know that, then I can’t help you. I can’t prove a negative and am not going to waste everyone’s time trying.

The truth is that I was unaware of the controversy surrounding Sobran or that some folks consider him anti-Semitic. I saw the bio and the subject of the forum and thought it would be interesting to attend. In a cursory glance through links provided on other blogs and elsewhere, I remain unconvinced that Sobran is an anti-Semite, but I can see why some think he is. A term like “anti-Semite” is a very serious charge and it is very often thrown about carelessly.

Let’s get on to more important things, shall we?

I have yet to see any evidence of someone accusing Owen Robinson of anti-Semitism. It's simply irresponsible to claim such a slander without providing evidence. Since he has not responded to my e-mails, I'm sure he's trying very hard to just "move on" to "more important things."

Vote for the Kramer, it's important

On September 12th, Waukesha County Supervisor Bill Kramer defeated taxpayer advocate Chris Lufter for the Republican nomination in the 97th assembly district. By the next evening, even as the dust was still settling on the Republican side, Democratic assembly candidate Steve Schumki's campaign was out putting up yard signs. Schmuki is a longshot in this race, but the Democrats got the Republican they wanted. As I noted before the primary,

What's even more amazing to me is how little Republican party members have learned from past campaigns. The playbook for the Democrats is the same: claim they will hold the line on taxes and blast the Republicans for any tax increases they may have voted for. Brian Manthey did it to Mary Lazich (who escaped thanks to Charlie Sykes), Jim Doyle did it to Scott McCallum and here in Waukesha Larry Nelson did it to Ann Nischke, whose embarrassing loss in the mayor's race is a perfect example of what could happen if County Supervisor Bill Kramer is nominated.

Schmuki has no record as a public official so he can claim he's not in favor of raising taxes while at the same time attacking his opponent as the $6 million dollar man.

Schumki has no reason to show the restraint Lufter showed during the primary. Look for Schmuki to re-use the ethics charge (the Democrats already knew about the conflict of interest involving Kramer's campaign treasurer), tie Kramer in with the Republican establishment, and make any noise Kramer makes about capping taxes as harmful to the environment and education. And if Kramer has any "anti-environment votes" (I know of at least one) Schmuki will use that, too.

What hurts Kramer even more is that he enters this cycle of the campaign actually down financially compared to the Democrat. Look for Schmuki to raise even more money in an attempt to make this a competitive race.

All that being said, Schmuki is still the long shot, given the number of Republican voters in the district. The straight ticket voters alone should be enough. Kramer will need to paint Schmuki as an environmental extremist who is in favor of massive spending on mass transit in Waukesha County. If Kramer can undermine Schmuki on that level while at the same time keeping the GOP base, he should do well.

One last piece of advice to Kramer: get Brad Schimel's lists.

Last minute predictions

The polls have not closed, and so I risk my reputation as a pundit while I gather myself for a "Primary Election Party" tonight. Just a reminder, predictions do not indicate preference.

First, the really easy prediction. Tonight I will re-tell the story of the yard signs in the trunk. I've added a new story, the hot dog story. Sorry, they are best told in person.

Second, there will not be a significant amount of cross-over voting. Despite the best effort of Charlie Sykes, there will not be a significant amount of cross-over voting in Milwaukee for Democrat Sheriff David Clarke, and there will not be a large amount of Democrats crossing over in the Carol Owens race.

Okay, on to the elections:

Milwaukee Sheriff: David Clarke will win, because of the odd combo of the black vote, white south-siders, and the white population on the far northwest side. Bobot never made a case to replace Clarke, and there are far too few East Side voters to elect someone county-wide. Clarke is hurt by Jeff Plale no longer turning out the vote in a competitive primary, and McNamara-McGraw will motivate some of the East Side to vote in bigger numbers. It won't be enough.

Waukesha Sheriff: Trawicki. Even if he does believe in higher taxes.

Milwaukee DA: the non-nut, Chisholm.

Waukesha DA: I'm guessing Krueger's support from the party and from Pro Life Wisconsin was not enough to overcome Schimel's advantage with the law enforcement officers. However, it remains to be seen how many of them will vote in a Republican Primary. It's real close, but I'm guessing Schimel.

Republican Attorney General: Van Hollen, although he still has not told us where the terrorists are training. And yes, that question about Van Hollen bothers me more than anything else about this race. But money does count for something, and the Waukesha Republican Party isn't enough to win. Bucher never closed the financial gap, and Van Hollen dumped even more money in at the end. Van Hollen will be my poster child for years to come about lifting the caps on contributions to counter the individual wealth of a candidate. He won't be a bad attorney general, he'll just be the Republican version of Herb Kohl. While I disagreed with Bucher on many issues... that whopper by Van Hollen about the terrorists was more than I could swallow.

Democrat Attorney General: Peg Lautenschlager will eke it out, if only to keep me amused between now and November. Falk's only case for getting rid of Lautenschlager, the drunk driving in a state car, has already been forgiven by many Democrats who don't understand it will kill Lautenschlager in the general election.

State Assembly 98th District: In this order, Rich Zipperer, Mike Maxwell, Robert G. Collison, Frank Goodwin and Thomas Schellinger. Collison will finish first among the Libertarians. Zipperer won this election when he won the sole-endorsement of Wisconsin Right to Life. I think they held a debate in this primary because Waukesha GOP Chairman Don Taylor had some shopping to do in Brookfield.

And last but not least...

State Assembly 97th District: Waukesha Taxpayer League President Chris Lufter will defeat County Supervisor Bill Kramer, although I think the election will be close. Lufter had more direct mail, better direct mail, radio ads, a telephone campaign, and probably hit more doors than Kramer. Certainly more areas. Kramer had the advantage of the endorsements and backing from most of the party, and never was able to use either of them effectively. His fundraising certainly never lived up to it's potential, and Lufter was able to keep pace fundraising with less overhead. Finally, Lufter's attacks on Kramer's record stung and were poorly answered. Of course, I say this as a complete Lufter partisan.

So conflicted

For those of you who didn't spend the fifty cents, front page headline of the Waukesha Freeman:

Candidates spar over pay hike vote
Lufter accuses Kramer of impropriety for vote on campaign treasurer, girlfriend
WAUKESHA – A candidate for 97th Assembly District has criticized an opponent for voting in March as a county supervisor in favor of a pay hike for his campaign treasurer, the county treasurer who also is his longtime girlfriend.

Assembly candidate Chris Lufter accused Waukesha County Supervisor Bill Kramer of “impropriety” for voting May 23 to increase salaries of constitutional officers, including that of his campaign treasurer and girlfriend, according to a Lufter campaign statement released Tuesday.

Kramer acknowledged county Treasurer Pamela Reeves has been his girlfriend for six years. But he cited the county’s ethical code and how girlfriends and boyfriends are not defined as “family” when considering whether voting on an issue would be a conflict of interest.

He also said he was voting on salary hikes for positions and not individuals. He referred to Lufter’s statements as a “personal attack.”

“There’s no conflict of interest because the salary is set for the position – not the name,” Kramer said. “It deeply troubles me that a candidate for public office would show such a lack of understanding.”

Lufter said her “main issue” is that Kramer did not abstain from voting despite Reeves being his campaign treasurer. Reeves said she has been Kramer’s campaign treasurer for “four or five years.”

“She was his campaign treasurer for the county board seat and afterwards,” Lufter said. “This is exactly the kind of politics that I don’t think we need to have anymore.”

It was also discussed this morning by Charlie Sykes on WTMJ-AM. County Supervisor Bill Kramer called in and angrily denounced the first caller, the lovely Doreen from Waukesha, as being "the wife of a blogger who is supporting Chris Lufter." He also dismissed his campaign treasurer/girlfriend as "just a name on a sign" for his County Supervisor race.

Funny how when County Supervisor Kramer is voting on issues of importance to the community, his girlfriend/campaign treasurer is just a name on a sign. When one of the voters in his district calls in, he attacks her personally for daring to speak up.

What a jerk.

(Other people calling in from Waukesha County were Alicia Silva from the Lufter Campaign and County Supervisor Ken Herro, a Kramer supporter.)

I did want to address one point a Kramer supporter tried to make in his defense. They're claiming that if Kramer shouldn't have voted on his campaign treasurer's pay raise, he shouldn't vote for his own pay raise.

The problem with that theory is that when a member of legislative body votes his/her own pay raise, the conflict of interest is both transparent and (almost) unavoidable. That is why they are almost always controversial, and the elected official is held directly accountable.

But when they vote on another government official's pay raise, then the conflict of interests are not readily apparent, and are certainly not unavoidable. Kramer had a basic obligation to abstain regardless of the actual rules. Rules cannot cover every contingency and we trust our elected officials to use a sound value system to make decisions accordingly. He failed.

And now, a word from Larry Nelson, Our Beloved Leader

Waukesha Mayor Larry Nelson takes a moment from his duties as Our Beloved Leader to assure the masses that he loves both Republicans and Democrats.

People who don’t know me would probably be surprised to find that I’m a regular viewer of both Mark Belling’s and Charlie Sykes’ TV shows, a regular reader of blogs including The Spring City Chronicle (thanks for showing the need for background checks), Wigderson Library and Pub (Do I really look like Fidel?), Musings of a Thoughtful Conservative and Jessica McBride’s Media Matters. I like to read and view a wide diversity of opinions, so in addition to the two local papers, I also read USA Today and the New York Times, and regularly watch “The Daily Show” and “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” (a sense of humor is essential with the news in today’s world). To balance the conservative blogs, I read the Xoff Files, folkbum’s ramble and rants, Daily Kos and listen to National Public Radio.

Well, Mr. Mayor, whether or not you look like Fidel Castro is probably less important than the fact that you appear to be on a first name basis.

Keep your sense of humor, Larry, and it's nice to see you wearing a tie. We'll talk more about this "blog" thing you're thinking of starting.

Now, about my firepit in the back yard...

Why Republicans drive me crazy

Yesterday we learned Congressman Mark Green, Republican candidate for governor, flubbed the gas tax question.

While Green would not state flatly whether he would raise transportation-related taxes or fees if elected, he indicated a reluctance to raise the taxes. "Any tax increase is the last thing to look at," he said.

Look, if you're a Republican candidate for anything and the reporter calls and asks, "Do you think this tax might need to go up?" just say no. When they ask about some committee in the state legislature studying increasing taxes to pay off the road builders, you just say no.

No, no, no, no.

It isn't that hard.

People ask why I'm supporting Chris Lufter for state assembly in Waukesha when the Republican establishment is against her. That's a reason to support Chris.

Because if you were to ask Chris Lufter one hundred times what her view is on raising taxes, she would tell you 100 times she will not vote to raise taxes. No nuance, no waiting to see what a committee thinks, no waiting to hear from a favorite lobbyist, the answer is no. And if you ask her to play shell games with different taxes, she won't do that either. I think you could threaten to drown her in ethanol and she won't support raising taxes (she's opposed to the ethanol mandate, too).

Her opponent is Waukesha County Supervisor Bill Kramer. He's a nice guy and he reads my blog. You know he's a nice guy because I haven't made any Seinfeldian Cosmo Kramer jokes about him.

However, County Supervisor Bill Kramer has a record of supporting county budgets that raise taxes. I've seen it, and I'm sure the Democrats have seen it. And if we send him to Madison, I'm really afraid he's going to be another one of those guys that complain when he gets attacked by talk radio for being wishy-washy on the issues. And if you think I'm being hard on him, here is what he said March 27th about reducing the size of the Waukesha County Board:

Kramer said the board was told to downsize for efficiency and we need to be more efficient because we cancelled 28 meetings. Why is canceling meetings a sign of inefficiency? He heard a radio host talking about reducing the county board and staff but he doesn’t see that in the ordinance. The media talks about getting rid of internal audit or moving it to the county executive’s office. Do you want the auditor auditing itself? He’s been in favor of reducing the board since he first ran for office. He finds it odd that here is a situation where you have people you agree with calling you names and putting you in a situation you can’t win. No matter which way he votes, he will lose. The board won’t win by reducing. If he votes to reduce the board to whatever number, he will be called names. The media says he gets benefits. He can get health insurance from the county at 100% of the cost or $430 per month versus the $88 he pays on his own. He has the benefit of being in the state retirement system but it will take 15 years to vest. He makes $8.77 per hour for this job and he does it to be called names and a liar. Maybe we aren’t the smartest people in the county if we are stupid enough to do this job.

What's even funnier he's now claiming he led on the issue. Do you really believe if he "led" on the issue, the mercurial County Supervisor Walter Kolb would be supporting Kramer? Kramer's leadership on the issue: Number of petition signatures gathered, 0. Number of speeches in support, 0. Number of op-ed pieces written in support, 0.

What's even more amazing to me is how little Republican party members have learned from past campaigns. The playbook for the Democrats is the same: claim they will hold the line on taxes and blast the Republicans for any tax increases they may have voted for. Brian Manthey did it to Mary Lazich (who escaped thanks to Charlie Sykes), Jim Doyle did it to Scott McCallum and here in Waukesha Larry Nelson did it to Ann Nischke, whose embarrassing loss in the mayor's race is a perfect example of what could happen if County Supervisor Bill Kramer is nominated.

Fortunately, I don't believe that's going to happen. I've seen the party favorite lose before (Kent Woods, Scott Allen). I've been hearing positive news about Chris Lufter's campaign everywhere I go. Unlike her opponent, Lufter has high name recognition throughout the district, and among Republican voters it's mostly positive. She is the only candidate with a proven track record of fighting higher taxes. She has elective office experience and experience working as volunteer leader for conservative causes.

I admit I'm partisan. But if we had a Republican Party worth anything, they would've been recruiting Chris Lufter to run for state assembly instead of working against her.

Which one of these is a hate crime?

I offer this "insight check" to Charlie Sykes to use monday morning free of charge.

Which of these two vandalism incidents will be treated as a hate crime?

SUN PRAIRIE - Vandals covered a Catholic school's walls and windows with Satanic graffiti and lit a bonfire in an adjacent rummage-sale tent, police said Friday.

The damage at Sacred Hearts Elementary School in Sun Prairie included pentagrams, upside-down crosses and the digits "666" painted on the building, said Police Lt. Linda Anderson.

A statue of the Virgin Mary was also targeted, said Duane Moellenberndt, pastor at Sacred Hearts Church.

"It was an upside-down cross painted in black down the front of the white statue ... and the eyes were all painted," he said.

From the same article:

A nearby thrift store run by a biracial couple was also struck by vandals. Police speculated the same perpetrators were responsible.

Vandals covered the back and side walls of the store with profanity, swastikas and at least one racial slur.

Don Baker, a Pentecostal pastor who leases the thrift store, said this was the fourth incident this summer in which race appeared to be a factor.

"From what's on the walls and things, it's obviously racial stuff," Baker said. "They've never busted a window before, so it's obviously getting worse."