Introducing the Scott Jensen Chain Gang

Bruce Murphy at Milwaukee Magazine has been the only person reporting on Scott Jensen’s attempt to start yet another right wing organization in Wisconsin. Apparently preparing for a second criminal trial is not fully occupying his time. According to Murphy’s most recent report, Jensen would be paid $120,000 to lead the organization and someone else would be brought on to head the research for $72k. Apparently they have tried to recruit both Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Wisconsin State Journal reporters for the research job. Maybe that is why neither paper has saw fit to even mention the org at all. This would be just the latest addition in a long line of extreme right wing groups trying to impose their rigid ideology onto the rest of Wisconsin. It is reportedly named the Maciver Institute.

In December the domain maciverinstitute.com was privately registered with no one willing to lay public claim to the new org. They also have set up a super duper secret Twitter account that you can’t follow without special permission. When I visited their actual website last night, it was still largely lacking substance. Right now I am having problems accessing it but here is a cached version. The site did give some important information however. It gave a glimpse of some of the people involved with this operation - a motley crew indeed. First you have Scott Jensen who still is awaiting his second criminal felony trial. Then you have Michael Dean, from the wild-eyed First Freedoms Foundation, listed as a contact person. Listed as treasurer for the org is Mark Block, the guy that got the stiffest penalty for political campaign violations ever handed down in the state. This new right wing org is also listed on a national directory and it lists Block as also being a contact for the organization.

Speaking of Mark Block, he posted an interesting entry on his Twitter account on January 30, 2009 at 3:18pm. I’m wondering if that Tweet inadvertently tells us a few more things about this new right wing outfit. It states the following:

“Klauser and Grebe will be calling meeting for Saturday, March 7th. Very important.”

Klauser is of course a long-time disciple of former Governor Tommy Thompson and Grebe is surely the right wing Bradley Foundation sugar daddy Michael Grebe. Michael Grebe and the Bradley Foundation are notoriously partisan and have funded some of the most extreme and narrow right wing outfits in the country. It looks like they may be adding yet another one to their twisted portfolio. With all of this chatter lately and with the constellation of right wing nuttery on March 7th, should we also expect a roll out this weekend?

I can’t help but notice that this new Jensen/Block/Dean/Grebe/Klauser thing appears to be coming just after the latest right wing organization (Wisconsin Institute for Leadership) lost its Executive Director and apparently its level of activity. Could this mean that WIL will be folded into the Jensen operation? How many of the other Wisconsin right wing organizations will be brought in? Whatever the exact arrangement, one thing is pretty clear: the Maciver Institute is bound to be a prison of rigid corporate interests and narrow right wing extremism. In that spirit and with its launch appearing imminent, I hereby dub it, the Scott Jensen Chain Gang!

Milwaukee Shouldn’t Gamble on Gabler

I wasn’t thrilled with my choices in Milwaukee’s race for Branch 15, but at least I now have some very clear guidance. The candidates are Assistant District Attorney Daniel Gabler and Municipal Judge JD Watts. Dan Bice wrote a piece in Monday’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that was not exactly flattering for Gabler. The starting point of the column was that he has been critical of current judges for an alleged “lack of work ethic”. The story then gives a few examples of Gabler missing court dates and suggests that charges were dropped as a result. Although that was the main point of the column, that was not the part the bothered me the most.

In the first paragraph Bice quotes Gabler as having attacked his opponents saying that they had “a record of defending criminals.” This attack line set off all sorts of red flags because it is a staple of the right wing win-at-all-costs-and-the-legal-system-be-damned approach to judicial races. I tracked down a Gabler flyer and confirmed that he did indeed use this attack. The flyer went even further saying:

"In fact, Ronald Dague supports a program that protects people who write bad
checks, which in his own words is... '...a way to avoid arrest
andprosecution,'"

"And, JD Watts defended a sex offender who
exposed himself to a child and a felon in possession of a gun."

"We don't need judges who look for loopholes."

Sound familiar? It should because it is the same kind of misleading and sleazy campaigning that Michael Gableman engaged in during his run for state Supreme Court last year. Gabler takes it all the way down to the use of the same old “look for loopholes” line.

Incidentally, the bad check program is an initiative of the District Attorney’s office, not something just dreamed up by Gabler’s one-time primary opponent. And with his attack on Watts, Gabler continues to channel Gableman apparently suggesting that people accused of crimes don’t deserve a lawyer and if you are their attorney, you must love both criminals and crime. I wonder what he thinks about Judge Randy Koschnick’s 14 years as a defense attorney?

A quick look at Daniel Gabler’s past campaign contributions brings us full circle. It shows that he liked the ethically challenged Gableman so much that he gave him $100 last year. I guess it should be no surprise that he is now using the Gableman-style playbook right here in Milwaukee County. We don’t need or deserve a miniature version of Michael Gableman for Branch 15. Milwaukee shouldn’t gamble on Gabler because, if he fancies the likes of Michael Gableman, it is a bet that we will eventually lose.

So what have you been complaining about?

I try to catch Mike Gousha’s Up Front program every Sunday. In my opinion, it is the best Wisconsin-based political program on television. Yesterday Gousha interviewed Randy Koschnick regarding his run for state Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the interview brought out more questions for me than it answered.

Although Koschnick has made 3 percent of his opponent's campaign contributions a major plank of his campaign, he admitted on the show that there was nothing illegal about them. This did not surprise me because even he could not be so absurd as to make such a claim. I did, however, expect him to make some lame ethics argument based on the judicial code. When asked that specific question, to my surprise, Koschnick admitted that this nonissue that he has been hyping for weeks, was not even an ethical violation. So the obvious follow up question is, “So exactly what have you been complaining about for the last several weeks?”

As much as I like Mike Gousha and his program, I was surprised that he didn’t follow up on such an obvious point. I was also disappointed that he, like most others in the traditional media, did not question Koschnick about his own campaign donations. Since I genuinely like Gousha and his program, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it was simply an issue of time and the fact that he tries to pack almost too much substance into a mere 30 minutes. If there is a case to be made for a full hour of Up Front, the Koschnick interview on Sunday could serve as Exhibit A.

How Obama Really Got Elected: The Video

Koschnick Double Talk and the AWOL Media

Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick has been talking out of both sides of his mouth on multiple issues. I’m not sure which is worse, that a candidate for the high court would repeatedly do this or that the traditional media would just run his talking points without questioning him on any of them.

Koschnick has made the main point of his entire candidacy a manufactured controversy over campaign donations to his opponent that represent only 3 percent of the total raised. He does this even though when he was running for judge in 1999, he accepted cash from lawyers that went on to have cases before him. Those donations to Koschnick represented about 40 percent of the total that he raised at that time. Unfortunately no one in the traditional media has asked him to square this circle so he just keeps talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Koschnick apparently can’t wait to repeatedly talk about “the bloody shirt” in the Knapp case, even though he himself threw out a pair of bloody shoes in the case. As many times as he has talked about this case, he has never explained why the defendant’s rights mattered with one piece of evidence and not the other. But then again, as far as I can tell, he has never been asked that question.

Koschnick talked in the last debate about not being partisan and repeatedly has accused his opponent of compromising her impartiality. He makes these repeated comments while at the same time appearing at just about every Republican event in the state. To their credit, at least the Wausau Daily Herald pointed out the double standard.

While Koschnick has been talking about clean campaign pledges, he has authorized fundraising letters that make the same old nasty attacks that we have come to expect. Reading the letter, one would think that his opponent was freeing all the criminals in the state and planning some sort of coup in Madison. It appeals only to the most paranoid on the right, yet he faces no accountability for it. The letter also takes a not so subtle swipe at the Chief Justice’s age, which I find particularly offensive. Is this what he means by a "clean campaign"? Perhaps someone should ask him to provide us with his definition.

Aside from the lead paragraph in the Wausau Daily Herald, the state’s media has largely given Koschnick a pass in all of these areas. Many times, they have gone well beyond just giving him a pass. At times they have printed his list of talking points and then acted as if that was legitimate news. Before April I certainly hope that more people start noticing the Koschnick double talk. You can’t act all sanctimonious about the state of our judicial elections and then do absolutely nothing to challenge this kind of behavior.

A Massive Deficit of Republican Memory

I have bad news. Most Republicans have conveniently lost their short term memory. How else can one explain their sudden transformation into hard core deficit hawks? They have done nothing but railed against our new president for deficit spending while apparently forgetting their own role in bringing us to this point. They wildly attacked the stimulus package and I would expect them to go into attack mode after President Obama’s big speech tonight.

Perhaps, as a public service, someone should try to jog the collective right wing memory.

• Bush came into office with a $230 billion surplus.
• Bush spent $1.35 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy in 2001.
• In 2002, Dick Cheney said that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
• Bush spent $1.5 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy in 2003.
• Bush spent untold billions of dollars on a war of choice in Iraq.
• Bush left behind a $1.2 trillion deficit – the largest in our nation’s history.

George W. Bush did not do all of this on his own because he had a faithful majority of rubber stamps in Congress from 2001 to 2006. No one in Congress was a bigger rubber stamp than Wisconsin’s own Paul Ryan. While he and his friends now complain about deficits and spending, they were certainly singing a different tune only a few years ago.

Call me a pessimist but somehow I don’t think that the likes of Paul Ryan will do the right thing tonight. I expect that we will hear more hypocrisy and sniping from the sidelines. While congressional Republicans are forgetting their recent past, the public can forget about hearing any real solutions from them.

Opposing Abortion by Causing More of Them?

The extreme right wing consistently has the same knee jerk reaction anytime the issue of publicly funded family planning services is broached. They howled so much over the funds designated for family planning services in the stimulus package that it was eventually taken out. When President Obama issued an executive order expanding family planning, it whipped the most extreme into an irrational frenzy. Quite simply, if they really cared about lowering the numbers of abortions, they would actually support expanded public funding of family planning services.

A new study released today by the Guttmacher Institute confirms what people in the “reality-based” community have been saying all along. Publicly funded family planning services actually reduces the number of abortions each year. Specifically, the study found that 810,000 abortions were prevented each year because of complete family planning services. If the right wing’s goal is really less abortion, then why would they constantly fight the efforts that have proven to greatly reduce them?

For the penny-pinching conservative that only cares about government spending, the study shows that $4 are saved for every one dollar invested in family planning services. The lead author of the study couldn’t be any more accurate in saying that, “the national family planning program is smart government at its best.”

If these publicly financed family planning programs accomplish these things, then why does the right wing fight such efforts at every single turn? Whether it is just an irrational knee jerk or blind ideology, they should be exposed for fighting the very things that they claim to care about most.

“Values Voters” that Don’t Value Honesty

How many more examples do we need to prove just how dishonest the “values” crowd is willing to be? Who can forget how they were pushing the anti-gay amendment in 2006 and saying that the second sentence wouldn’t endanger domestic partnerships and civil unions? At that time a poll was released showing that the majority of Wisconsinites did not have a problem with domestic partner-type benefits. Even some conservatives voiced their discomfort with the second sentence of the anti-gay amendment. Groups like Fair Wisconsin repeatedly warned that things like domestic partnerships would be attacked after the amendment’s passage.

Only a few months after enshrining discrimination into our state constitution, fringe Representative Steve Nass attacked the idea of domestic partner benefits for state employees. He used the anti-gay amendment as his main talking point. Now that Governor Doyle has made a proposal that would allow same-sex couples to form domestic partnerships, the extreme right wing is once again howling about the anti-gay amendment. This argument is being made even though many of the amendment’s supporters claimed that it wouldn’t endanger the possibility of domestic partnerships and civil unions.

In what appears to be some sort of a sick obsession, gay-hater Julaine Appling insists on injecting herself into the discussion. This recent proposal has her frothing again, and threatening to take legal action if the Governor’s proposal is enacted. Legal action based on the anti-gay amendment that supporters insisted would not prevent civil union and domestic partnership benefits. It should also be noted that during the debate on the anti-gay amendment, Appling actually commented, that "the language of the amendment is such that it will actually prevent the need for extensive litigation on the marriage issue." Yes, and naturally that is why she is now threatening legal action, right?

In 2008 the Michigan State Supreme Court ruled that their state universities and other state entities couldn’t offer domestic partnership benefits because of the anti-gay amendment that their voters had passed. If this good and decent proposal is challenged in court how sure can we be that it will survive? If it finds its way to our state Supreme Court, it will face a conservative majority. Thanks to a recent Capital Times story, we also know that Randy Koschnick holds these kinds of anti-gay and extreme views. Thanks to The Lost Albatross we also know that he actually called Appling’s organization (among others) from his courthouse phone. Did he talk to her? Was it about how he would rule on such matters?

Exactly what many on the right said would not happen as a result of the anti-gay amendment is exactly what seems to be coming to pass. Apparently dishonesty and deception is acceptable to them as long as they get the result that they want. In this process one thing has become clear. Many of these self described “values voters” apparently don’t put much of a value on honesty. At least not if it gets in the way of their extreme agenda.

Nancy Mistele’s Missing Business

Nancy Mistele’s entire campaign for Dane County Executive seems to be built on only two things: the shameless misuse of a Dane County tragedy and her own self promotion as a savy businessperson. Regarding the later, we can only learn so much by going to her website. On the “About Nancy” page it lists several of her business ventures and affiliations. However, at least one business is curiously missing from that list.

In 1998 the business MBH Studio LLC was organized according to the Department of Financial Institutions. The registered agent of the business was Nancy Mistele. Based on information from a lease, it appears that this new business venture was associated with Mistele’s Signatures Salon. It appears that Mistele was using these related business entities to rent space to small business people that mostly worked in cosmetology.

Neither of these entities are mentioned very often by Mistele, her campaign or at all on her website. The obvious question is why? Some of the available public records may give us a few of the possible reasons. The Department of Financial Institutions shows that MBH Studio was dissolved only 6 years after it was created. In that short period of time the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access site shows at least 4 Small Claims actions involving its affiliated Signatures Salon. In all 4 cases Mistele was listed as the plaintiff and was suing small business persons that rented space from her. It is not clear how many “chairs” Mistele rented, but one can assume that the rate of legal action in such a short period must have been unacceptably high.

Two of the four cases ended in default judgments against the people that rented space. One was dismissed because the person was forced into filing for bankruptcy protection. But at least one of the people that rented from Nancy Mistele decided to fight the legal action. Documents that she filed in the case allege actions that are hardly flattering for anyone, and even less so for someone touting their business acumen.

Perhaps the most disturbing assertion by the defendant comes at the end of a letter to her landlord suggesting “discrimination.” The defendant repeatedly makes this charge but never specifies exactly what kind of “discrimination” that she is talking about, nor does she list her exact reason for making the accusation. Perhaps someone in the media should ask both the former tenant and Nancy Mistele a few questions about these charges. Perhaps there is absolutely nothing to them, but the public has a right to know before the April election.

The defendant in this case also filed a counter claim against Nancy Mistele, which she spells out in an itemized list to the court. The list alleges rent miscalculations and lost business due to repeatedly broken water heaters and a generally unprofessional atmosphere. In another attachment she continues spelling out other grievances and complaints. In a letter to the court commissioner the defendant also states that Nancy Mistele tracked down her new landlord to say bad things about the defendant. In the letter she reports that her new landlord described Mistele as “intimidating.”

Obviously there are two sides to every story, but that does not eliminate the public’s right to know more about someone that is asking for their vote. In the end, nothing of this nature should be hidden from voters. Just because information about a candidate may be missing from their own website, it does not mean that it should be absent from public scrutiny.

Fake Outrage, Real Hypocrisy

The Koschnick Campaign and their right wing followers, have tried their best to manufacture controversy surrounding contributions from prominent lawyers to Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. The fake outrage stems specifically from contributions by lawyers working at firms that have a case scheduled to be heard before the high court. The first thing that the right wing fails to say is that the contributions are totally legal and that lawyers on both sides of the matter have given to the Chief Justice. Yet another set of facts that they fail to address is whether Koschnick has ever received campaign contributions from lawyers that eventually argued before him.

According to records from the Government Accountability Board, the last time that Judge Koschnick launched a fundraising effort was during his initial run for judge in 1999. Obviously the contribution totals in a small county judicial race is nowhere near the monetary level as it is in a statewide race for the high court. That being said, it still offers us a perspective of what Koschnick did the last time that he was in the situation that he is now finds himself critiquing.

The 1999 campaign finance documents identify at least 8 attorneys that donated to then-candidate for Jefferson County Judge, Randy Koschnick. Of those 8 attorneys, 6 of them went on to have cases before Koschnick after he won that election. Those attorneys are John Dade, Samuel Benedict, Steven Luchsinger, Lee Leverton, Ronald W. Ziwisky and John (Jack) Chavez. Koschnick’s contributions from just these 6 attorneys represent nearly 40 percent of money raised during that campaign. Did Koschnick give back the campaign cash before these cases came before him? Did he notify everyone involved in the cases that some were his donors? If he didn’t do these things, then exactly what is he complaining about now? If he is now suggesting that one cannot receive campaign contributions and still judge fairly, then is he admitting that he didn’t judge these cases fairly?

It also appears that at least one of the above attorneys also had cases before Koschnick in which he was listed as the plaintiff. Ronald W. Ziwisky had at least two eviction cases before Koschnick. In one of them Koschnick actually granted his donors motion for additional monetary judgment against the defendant. Using Judge Koschnick’s current standard, was this appropriate? Did he notify the other parties of the campaign contribution from Ziwisky?

Judge Koschnick and his supporters are exhibiting a good deal of fake outrage and are trying to stir up a manufactured controversy. They are asking all sorts of questions, none of which are directed at themselves or at their ever shifting standards.

Questionable Communications = Questionable Judgment

In recent weeks we have learned much more about Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick. First The Lost Albatross reported that he had used his courthouse desk phone to call extremist right wing groups like Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) and the rabidly anti-gay Wisconsin Family Council. That blog also revealed that he used his state email to contact WRTL, who eventually endorsed him in his run for the state Supreme Court. This week the Capital Times took an even deeper look at Koschnick, while also confirming much of The Lost Albatross report. These recent developments and Koschnick’s apparent extremist views have rightfully caused people to question his judgment. One thing that has not been explored as much has been whether he broke any rules in using official communications to contact people and groups that are clearly now the very core of his campaign’s support.

After all of the drama in Wisconsin regarding campaigning on state time with state resources, one would think that a public official would stay as far away from any such perception as possible. If I were a public official and planned on running a campaign for higher office, I would go out of my way to avoid any appearance of using taxpayer funded time and resources to promote that effort. Apparently judge Koschnick does not share those standards.

As has already been reported, leading up to his announcement to run for the state Supreme Court he used his official courthouse phone to call several organizations that have been politically active in our state. Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) regularly endorses the most right wing candidates for example. So just as he is planning his campaign for state Supreme Court, Judge Koschnick just happens to find a reason to repeatedly call his local WRTL contact from his official phone? Not only did Judge Koschnick use his official phone to call this political ally but he also used his state email to talk about how he would be introduced during one of their upcoming events. The WRTL contact suggests an intro including the fact that he is going to be running for state Supreme Court. Again, using his state email, Koschnick signs off on the proposed intro that some might consider a promotion of his upcoming campaign. As we now know, WRTL ended up officially endorsing Koschnick.

As if the above example isn’t enough, Koschnick again shows that he is particularly tone deaf when he signs up to receive Google Alerts for “Koschnick Supreme” to his state email account. Exactly how is this NOT campaign related? How is this an appropriate use of taxpayer funded time and resources?

At the very least Koschnick's use of these resources and taxpayer funded time is questionable. Surly any ethics expert would suggest that his behavior enters a gray area that should be avoided. Given the many ethics problems that have been raised over the last several cycles, do we really want someone added to the high court that is so comfortable dancing right up to the ethical line? The bottom line is that these communications are at least questionable and apparently so is Koschnick’s judgment.

219 minus 3 equals Obstruction

Just a few weeks ago Republican Congressman Paul Ryan stepped up to a mic saying to a national audience that his party was not an opposition party but a proposition party. It was quite an expensive joke as they promptly voted in complete lock step against the stimulus plan. At the time I commented that if the Republicans were not an opposition party then that particular vote proved that they were certainly an obstructionist one. That point has been confirmed with the vote taken yesterday in the U.S. Senate. Only 3 Republicans, out of 41, voted for the greatly compromised stimulus plan in the Senate. I don’t know what definition Ryan and others use for “obstructionist” but I’d say that only 3 votes out of 219 Congressional Republicans fits almost anyone’s definition.

First they ran around falsely declaring that the plan was “full of pork” when they were largely only complaining about just over 2% of the spending in it. Their misinformation campaign was fairly successful for a short time as the media focused on that small percentage rather than on the 98 % that will help our ailing economy and create millions of new jobs. Having a good week of manipulating the media and obstructing during this economic emergency brings only limited political benefit while the downside could make their November loses look like child’s play. The public can and should be very fickle with politicians during such hard times. Hopefully the public will make Ryan and the other obstructionists in Congress pay a heavy price if they continue to play political games while there is so much crisis all around.

The Big-Money Mobleys and Other Surprises

Last week campaign finance documents were filed with the Government Accountability Board. There were a few surprises but I can’t decide which of the following was the most unexpected.

1. In the Department of Public Instruction race, conservative Van Mobley raised over $60,000, but perhaps the biggest surprise was that a full $46,000 of it was from people that share his last name. So far this looks like a wealthy family-funded affair, with Van giving his own campaign $5,000 and his wife pitching in $10,000. The remaining Mobley money came from folks living down south. Two donors from the same Alabama address gave a combined $20,000. Another couple from the same South Carolina address gave a combined $ 11,000. Without these maxed out donations from his apparently wealthy family, the Mobley Campaign would have only brought in just over $14,300. For a statewide campaign, I’m not sure that such support is much to write home about – or maybe it is.
2. Apparently Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick is so busy communicating with right wing extremists that he has been unable to raise much cash. In his filing last week he only reported $14,595 raised, nearly $10k of which was from his own wallet.
3. And then there is virtual schools advocate and DPI candidate Rose Fernandez. With all of her press releases, internet videos, and apparent support among the right wing blogging class, it was a little surprising that she was left with a big goose egg for fundraising. Technically, it appears that she did raise 50 bucks from somewhere but then spent it ending the year with a zero balance. Based on that number, one might suggest that her support is only virtual (sorry, couldn't resist).

Koschnick Not Too Busy For the Extreme

During his first debate with Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick used an unusual strategy. Responding to a listing of cases where the court of appeals determined that he overstepped his authority and ignored statutes, he responded saying that he was just too darn busy to worry about using “magic words” and that is why he was reversed in those cases. When he said that he was too busy, who knew it was because he was chatting it up with some of the most extreme right wingers in the state?

The Lost Albatross blog was the first to report that Jefferson County phone records show that Judge Koschnick used his courthouse desk phone to call the Wisconsin Family Council. This is the same organization that led the charge to enshrine discrimination against gay Wisconsinites into our state constitution. The group is led by the wildly extreme Julaine Appling who just last year was demanding the prosecution of gay couples that got married in San Francisco and then came back home to Wisconsin. She also is well known for her comment that society has been very tolerant to gay couples by “allowing them to live wherever they choose.” Was Koschnick providing his legal analysis on such subjects to this group? Was he seeking the support/advice of the 501(c)(3) group while planning his run for state Supreme Court? Whatever the answers, someone in the media should be asking the questions.

Apparently the Wisconsin Family Council was not the only right wing group that Koschnick was calling from his courthouse phone. The Lost Albatross also reported that he had also placed a phone call and exchanged emails with the local contact for Wisconsin Right to Life. Incidentally, that group just endorsed his candidacy. What were these communications about and was it appropriate to use an official phone and a state email to have them? Isn’t he “too busy” to conduct such communications on the taxpayer’s dime?

Not only did Judge Koschnick say that he was “too busy for magic words” but he has also been very critical about one of his fellow judge’s use of time at the Jefferson County Courthouse. Koschnick attacked one fellow judge in an email complaining that the judge started hearing cases 30 minutes too late. It seems a little disingenuous when we now know that he may have spent more time than that talking to Appling's group. Even if he really is “too busy” we now know that Judge Koschnick is definitely not “too busy” to consult with some of the most extreme elements in Wisconsin.

WPRI’s Vicious Attack on Itself

Right wing organization WPRI released its own commentary about the state budget and the deficits that it has faced over the last number of years. One of the big villains of the report is the act of filling budgetary holes with one-time revenues. This is truly an odd detail for WPRI to attack since the leader of the organization, George Lightbourn could be a poster child for that very technique.

George Lightbourn was the Secretary of Administration under two Republican governors. One was Governor Scott McCallum who presided over what was probably one of the worst budget crises in state history. Actually, at the time, Lightbourn admitted to reporters that the state budget “was in the worst shape that it had been in some twenty years.” They managed to accomplish that dubious distinction without having to manage anything like the current economic crisis that the entire globe is now facing.

In an attempt to partially fix their budgetary mess, Lightbourn and his boss thought it wise to do a one time quick fix, by raiding the tobacco settlement fund. Essentially they sold off the entire tobacco settlement for only pennies on the dollar. In short, Lightbourn and the administration that he helped run, did the very same thing that his conservative organization is now condemning. Is he hoping that everyone simply forgets his past role or is he just a glutton for punishment?

Media Fumbling Facts for Koschnick

After watching the first debate between Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick, I was shocked at how most of the reports in the media simply restated Koschnick’s empty talking points and illegitimate attacks. With all of their “outrage” over the nastiness of the last race, one would think that the media would actually do their job – report the facts. They can complain about nasty campaigning all that they want but if they don’t hold candidates accountable, they themselves are part of the problem.

During the debate Koschnick repeatedly threw around the old meaningless “activist” label. The press seemed to take his name calling and run with it, printing it in most of their stories about the debate. Yet, given his repeated use of the word “activist” none of the reporters saw fit to mention one of the most compelling moments in the entire debate. The Chief Justice started reading off several cases where Judge Koschnick had been reversed by the court of appeals. There seemed to be a common theme from the higher court, repeatedly saying that Koschnick exceeded his authority and ruled in ways that ignored statutes. If there is a definition of an “activist” judge, some of the appeals courts descriptions could have served as such. Somehow this pot/kettle moment was either totally missed or deliberately ignored by the press.

In addition, the media has known for a while that Koschnick was going to wave around the bloody shirt from the infamous Knapp case. He brought it up repeatedly during the debate and the media reported his comments. What neither he nor the media did bring up was the fact that in the very same case, he himself ruled that a pair of bloody shoes should not be allowed as evidence. The only thing that the media had to do was search their own past reporting of the case and they would have learned about Koschnick’s ruling on the shoes. They didn’t do that and settled with simply carrying his one sided and disingenuous commentary.

In the absence of real reporting and basic fact checking, bloggers quickly began to point out the whole picture about the Knapp case. Only then did the state’s largest paper finally run an online item reporting about Koshnick’s ruling on the bloody shoes. But even after finally reporting the fact, they still could not get the information completely correct, making a very fundamental mistake in its reporting which later had to be corrected.

The idea that no one at this newspaper association debate was familiar enough with the basic facts of the Knapp case, when they knew it was going to be used, is irresponsible. Equally troubling is that reporters simply repeated Koschnick’s name calling without making him answer for his own record. Not only did the media completely abdicate their responsibilities in the reporting of this debate, but they showed a disturbing propensity to completely and totally fumble the facts.

Paul Ryan’s Expensive Nursery Rhyme

Yesterday I watched the Republican House leadership explain their opposition to the stimulus plan. Included in the press conference was Wisconsin’s own Congressman Paul Ryan. After stepping up to the mic he showed us that he could rhyme, when he said that the Republican Party was “not an opposition party, but a proposition party.” He said this even though he knew full well that every single member of his party was planning on voting as a bloc against the stimulus package. That kind of behavior is almost the very definition of an opposition (and obstructionist) party. Ryan may as well have stood in front of the press and recited his favorite nursery rhyme, because it would have been just about as factual as the tall tale that he tried to tell.

Paul Ryan’s blind support of failed Bush policies have been bad enough for this economy, but his antics now only compound the severity of our problems. Like the nation as a whole, Ryan’s home state and his constituents are suffering tremendous economic hardship. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that this economic stimulus bill could “pump billions of dollars into Wisconsin’s economy through funding for highway and water projects, food stamps and unemployment benefits and education and law enforcement grants, among other things.” If Ryan and his partisanship-first approach is successful, these billions will never get to his constituents or at least will be unnecessarily delayed. That is an expensive proposition and it makes Ryan’s opposition and obstruction all the more abhorrent.

It would be humorous if it wasn’t so tragic that Ryan and Company are partially objecting to the stimulus plan because of it increasing the deficit. He can’t be serious can he? After eight years of being the living definition of a rubber stamp for George Bush? Apparently someone has to remind him about what they inherited in 2000, what they have done with it, and what they have now passed on to President Obama. Suddenly he cares about deficit spending now that a Democrat is president? Again his ever shifting values are the very definition of hyper-partisan, obstructionist, and opposition. Paul Ryan can tell as many nursery rhymes as he likes, but the realities of our situation require honesty, swift action and adult supervision.

Get Back to Me in April

Wispolitics is reporting that Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce is planning to “sit out” this spring’s race between Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Jefferson County Judge Randy Koschnick. Forgive me if I’m not dancing in the streets just yet. It would probably be best to check back in April. Chances are high that this is simply a conservative shell game.

The report says that the big biz lobby, that so tarnished the last two elections for the state Supreme Court, plans to only provide “background” on the two candidates this time around. We will see what they mean soon enough. Will they pay another Federalist Disciple to produce a “white paper” that serves as little more than a conservative hit piece? Will they launch a strategically timed series of press releases for “background only” that end up unfairly attacking another sitting justice? Will that “background” turn into front page stories?

If they really do “sit out” this one, we should pay even closer attention. What will likely happen is that the corporate cash will just go to the many shameless conservative groups that have been perfecting the smear campaign. That could serve as another Christmas for groups like All Children Matter, WIL and others. If the cash flows in that direction, then this new announcement will mean very little. Many of these groups have already shown that they have no problem with ratcheting up the sleaze factor and keeping us from a real and substantive debate. That has also been the corporate lobby's calling card, whether WMC's name is on the TV ad or not.

Public Defenders of Right Wing Hypocrisy

It was only months ago that all of right wing Wisconsin was frothing at the thought of a former public defender being retained on the state Supreme Court. Even though Louis Butler is a giant legal mind, they used his distinguished career against him, most often his work as a public defender. By the time they were finished they had all but indicted him for the alleged crimes of his former clients, reduced our most basic rights to “loop holes” and exploited tragic cases by use of gross distortions and flat lies. Now their shamelessness has come full circle as they are beginning to fawn over the next right wing activist-in-waiting, Randy Koschnick.

Even though they were condemning the necessary and noble work of public defenders only months ago, now they find themselves in the strange position of lauding the position. Clearly they are changing on a dime because Randy Koschnick spent most of his legal career as a public defender. During those 14 plus years he represented many people charged with many terrible crimes, including one very infamous one. Many of the same right wingers that were condemning Butler are now praising the legal career of Randy Koschnick, twisting themselves into shameful pretzels in the process.

The only right wing ideologue that I am aware of that has actually managed to stay somewhat consistent is Milwaukee-area talk show host Mark Belling. Although I vehemently disagree with his vile approach to criminal law (among many other things), he at least has not sold his soul on this specific issue. Early in the process he voiced his opposition to Randy Koschnick as the conservative candidate for the high court. Most of the others have already begun falling in line, checking any remaining credibility at the door.

Most right wing bloggers and others have shown no shame in supporting something that only bred contempt in them mere months ago. One can only assume that the right wing sugar daddy types that funded last year’s slander are not far behind. With their sudden love for public defenders they will also find themselves publicly defending something else: right wing hypocrisy.

Words Really Do Matter

Last Thursday I blogged about the conservative organization Wisconsin Institute for Leadership (WIL), and its Executive Director Brian Fraley. I openly wondered if it was appropriate that he forwarded a campaign email including his own note that Department of Public Instruction candidate Rose Fernandez is “worthy of your support”. As the head of a 501c4 nonprofit, this came dangerously close to crossing some important lines in my opinion. In that blog I also wondered if this was a sign that he was preparing to go to work for the Fernandez campaign. Later that same day we learned that he in fact was taking leave from WIL to become her campaign manger. Fraley responded to my blog in the comments section but didn’t fully address the issue.

Fraley seems to be suggesting that his forwarding of the Fernandez Campaign email and commenting that she was “worthy of your support” was personal. I am frankly surprised that he would not see the importance of his words whether his email was technically personal or not. His own business website states the following:

"The words you use to convey your thoughts can make or break a political
campaign...At the Markesan Group, one of our first tasks for clients is to
develop lists of which key words you should use, and which killer words to
avoid"

Words do matter and that idea does not just extend to political campaigns or to his own private clients. It also extends to him, in his position as WIL executive director. I would suggest that the words “worthy of your support” when talking about a candidate for public office are “killer” words in this context. Now that he has actually gone to work for that campaign, the importance of his words while acting as WIL Executive Director should be amplified ten-fold.

Fraley’s December email is not the only area of question between WIL and the Fernandez Campaign. Also in December and again last week the Daily Takes Twitter account mentions Fernandez and promotes her campaign’s You Tube video. Although this Twitter account is named after Fraley’s blog, it also bears a WIL logo at the top. Even if we are to explain away the email (which I assume didn’t include a WIL logo), exactly what is the explanation for this?

At the very least these issues blur some very important lines. In this specific case the blurred lines should call into question any advocacy from WIL surrounding the upcoming Department of Public Instruction election and Rose Fernandez in particular. Given the entire context, how could WIL be taken seriously? I agree with the Markesan Group that words really do matter, and that includes the use of the word “independent.”

Congratulations Mr. President!

WIL Fraley’s Virtual Independence

In September right wing blogger and political operative Brian Fraley announced that he was taking a new job as the Executive Director of the Wisconsin Institute for Leadership (WIL). This organization is supposed to be “independent” complete with a 501c4 non-profit tax status. At the time Fraley described on his Daily Takes blog that the new organization was “nonprofit, nonpartisan and issue-focused.”

Oh really? If WIL is actually “nonpartisan and issue focused”, then why did Brian Fraley, forward Rose Fernandez announcement that she was running for Department of Public Instruction? According to a recent report by the Capital Times, he did not just forward that announcement but also included a very supportive note about the candidate. According to the report, this happened sometime in December. The obvious question here is should the head of an “independent” 501c4 advocacy organization be advancing a candidate’s campaign in this manner? Exactly what contact has Rose Fernandez or her representatives had with WIL Fraley and when did they have it?

On January 1, the WIL blog notes that Fraley is taking leave from his position there until April 15, which is obviously after the general election for Department of Public Instruction. Could the executive director of this “independent” 501c4 advocacy organization actually be taking leave to work for the Fernandez Campaign? Perhaps someone should ask Fraley…perhaps they should ask Fernandez. Even if he is not going to work for Fernandez directly, is he going to work for someone else on her behalf? Is this appropriate? Even if WIL and Fraley had any credibility about being “independent” in the first place, how could anyone take them seriously now?

At this point we don’t know if Brian Fraley is taking leave from WIL to work for the Fernandez Campaign, but his pattern of behavior is interesting. When he took the job at WIL he posted on his Daily Takes blog exactly why it had gone on hiatus. At that time he explained, “Daily Takes doesn’t help pay my mortgage. My real jobs do.” Low-and-behold, Fraley just announced on his blog today that it is once again going on “hiatus”! If he is being true to form, then it must be because of one of his “real jobs.” We know that his “real job” at WIL can’t be to blame this time, so what/who is the culprit now?

Brian Fraley has openly commented on his work for the virtual schools lobby and with Rose Fernandez in particular. Whether or not he eventually goes to work for her actual campaign, his actions supporting her recently should make things crystal clear. Any claim from Fraley or WIL about being “independent” are completely virtual and have no basis in reality.

UPDATE: Can someone say BINGO?

The part that is most problematic to me is that Fraley's email (as reported by the Capital Times) includes the following: "...she is worthy of your support." Independent groups and their agents cant "support" or "oppose" candidates. Based on today's announcement, it looks like he wont just be "supporting" the Fernandez Campaign now, but actually running it.

No Longer a Judge, But Still Getting Reversed

Way back in September of 2007 I blogged about how conservatives had to settle for “a D-List Judge with D-List Grades” to run against then-Justice Louis Butler. That blog focused on Michael Gableman and the frequency with which he had been reversed as Burnett County Judge. Even though Gableman no longer sits in that position, he apparently has not lost his propensity for rejection.

In November he asked the three-judge panel that is handling the ethics complaint against him to stop the Judicial Commission’s pursuit of the matter. Apparently he believes that the complaint interferes with his right to lie. The three-judge panel considering the ethics complaint dismissed his request on Tuesday. Even though he is no longer a circuit court judge, it looks like Michael Gableman is going to find new and creative ways to continue his tradition of being dismissed, over-ruled and otherwise “reversed”.

The Big Biz Bandwagon on Paid Sick Days

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel jumped on the Big Biz bandwagon today railing against Milwaukee’s Paid Sick Days ordinance. They almost dedicated the entire editorial section to attacking the will of nearly 70 percent of Milwaukee voters. Naturally they also suggest that those voters are idiots and that they were somehow fooled into voting for paid sick days because of the wording of the referendum.

In the first of their two editorials attacking paid sick days, they completely and totally tow the corporate lobby line. They talk about “substantial legal questions” but these would be more accurately described as manufactured loopholes by high priced corporate lawyers. For the right fee, you could probably find someone to raise “substantial legal questions” about just about anything, but that does not make the argument legitimate or “substantial”.

The editorial board once again falls back on the centuries-old lie that if you ask big business to raise their minimum standards that it will result in lost jobs and a worse economy. Opponents use this familiar theme while rarely looking at the municipalities across the country that have already enacted similar policies. Clearly they have no interest in what happens in reality.

The first editorial goes on to comment that “sick pay is a great benefit – if employer and employee are free to negotiate the terms in a flexible way.” This comment truly reveals just how out of touch they are with many of the working poor in our community. If they are not represented by a union, many are not in a position to realistically “negotiate” about benefits with their employers. They desperately need their jobs and they have very little leverage and may even fear retribution for even asking.

A community of people have the right to decide on the minimum standards that they will accept. In an absolute landslide, the voters of the City of Milwaukee have established one such standard on November 4, 2008. They decided that no person working here should have to choose between a job and the health of their children. They decided that public health is an important priority and that it should not take a back seat to big business bottom lines, even if that big business is their hometown newspaper.

Schizophrenic MJS Can't Decide on Walker

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has treated County Executive Scott Walker with kid gloves for a very long time. The county infrastructure is falling down all around him and they can barely muster the courage to hold him accountable. There are so many ways that they have abdicated their responsibilities regarding Walker that it is almost pointless to make a list.

After universally being panned for refusing federal money for Milwaukee County, the MJS was actually able to critique Scott Walker. The humorous part of their editorial, at least for me, was how it began. The headline read "Just plain wrong" but then the very first sentence started, "Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker is right..." If nothing else, it encapsulates the paper's unhealthy love affair with the disaster on the third floor. Unhealthy and apparently a little schizophrenic.

Scott Walker Boards Crazy Train to Bankruptcy

At Governor Jim Doyle’s request, the Wisconsin Counties Association has asked all counties to quickly submit projects that might be funded by the coming federal stimulus plan. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is reporting that County Executive Scott Walker is refusing such federal assistance. The only possible explanation for such an irresponsible statement is that Walker is anticipating a primary in is never ending quest to be governor and is trying to score points with the most extreme elements of the Republican Party. As usual, Milwaukee County taxpayers take a back seat.

Apparently Scott Walker doesn’t know that Milwaukee County residents also pay federal taxes and that they deserve and expect a local return on their investment. The stimulus plan is going to happen, and the money will be distributed, if not to Milwaukee County then certainly to Waukesha and others who likely won’t refuse the cash.

Scott Walker doesn’t seem to understand how important a quality infrastructure can be to a community and a region. While he has been County Executive we have witnessed the crumbling of that very infrastructure in countless areas. This is detrimental to the individual taxpayer and also to the larger economic development of the county. If his 2009 budget’s elimination of the Economic Development Director position did not send the signal that he doesn’t really care about this stuff, then his current actions certainly make that point very clearly.

Another sign that he is pandering to the rabid right wing is that he once again is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Milwaukee County accepts federal funding every single day on a broad array of programs and services. Is Scott Walker really saying that this is all terrible and we should no longer accept it? Why does Milwaukee County still have a paid lobbyist working in Washington, D.C. if Scott Walker has some problem with bringing as much federal dollars back home as possible?

In the last Transportation and Public Works Committee meeting it was revealed that Scott Walker was planning on applying for a federal Small Starts grant to help fund his Bus Rapid Transit plan. That FEDERAL program could pay between 50 and 80 percent of the costs of that program, which would translate into some $25-40 million. If Scott Walker is suddenly so opposed to accepting federal help, why was he planning on asking for it himself just a short time ago?

Given his record, you have to question every decision that Walker makes and whether it is really about his never ending quest for higher office. This latest irresponsible comment is certainly no exception. Although Walker may be trying to get on a campaign bus to the governor’s office, he actually just boarded the crazy train to bankruptcy. Milwaukee County is the economic engine of the state and represents some 20 percent of its population and that unfortunately means that all of us could be in for one scary ride.

Bad Cop, Worse Cop and Crazy Cop

The Wisconsin State Journal is using space on its editorial page to plead with the state GOP. The editorial asks them not to “isolate” themselves now that they are so deservedly out of the majority. State Republicans could probably heed any random advice at this point and do better for their constituents than they have in the last number of years. Perhaps they are simply in total disarray right now, but it appears that their early strategy is a weird twist on a classic one. Rather than play the old “good cop, bad cop” they seem to be implementing a “bad cop, worse cop and crazy cop” strategy.

First you have Senate Republican leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) putting out a press release today sounding the same loser note that we hear every year, “cut, cut, cut!” Given the tough circumstances, difficult decisions will surely have to be made, but Fitzgerald does not approach the situation with any new ideas, just more right wing talking points and narrow ideology. His only solution appears to be cutting important programs, many of which are even more important now, because more people are in need.

Two of Fitzgerald’s outrages are very telling and so is the fact that he lists them first. Naturally, both are related to very powerful special interests. He bemoans the proposed Hospital Tax even though it is supported by the hospitals themselves and will at the very least pay for itself. He also takes time to advocate for the interests of Big Oil in opposing a proposed tax on their obscene profits. If Fitzgerald were really concerned about the average taxpayer’s burden, he wouldn’t trample them in his rush protect the powerful from paying their fair share. Scott Fitzgerald appears to be playing the role of “bad cop” right out of the gate.

Conveniently filling in the “worse cop” role is Scott’s brother, Representative Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon). Just last week he commented to the Associated Press about the State’s budget challenge by saying, “I don't have to solve that problem. Obviously, that's the Democrats' problem." The Wisconsin State Journal was correct to point out his partisanship first approach to governing. This is how his party has managed all of the years that they have been in the majority, so it is certainly no surprise to see such a response from one of their key “leaders”. Unfortunately this kind of approach to such a challenging situation makes an already bad situation ten times worse.

Then you have the reliably “isolated” Senator Glenn Grothman chiming in by begging the federal government not to help the states. He says it as if he has a vested interest in total disaster for the People of Wisconsin. This is particularly galling because much of the situation that we find ourselves in is due to the market-tested failure of right wing policy. Now that the grown-ups are in charge, Glenn apparently doesn’t know how in the world to respond. Whatever his “reasoning,” his early reaction certainly fills the GOP role of “crazy cop.”

I don’t know if this is by design or by disorganized default, but the GOP reaction to governing is a disaster right out of the gate. That is not good for anyone, especially the hardworking people of the state who expect more from their elected officials.

The Grinch that wants to steal my sick days

Just in time for the holidays, Milwaukee’s big business lobby has filed a frivolous lawsuit against the people of Milwaukee. After all, it was almost a 70 percent majority that approved the paid sick day ordinance on November 4. Now that massive majority is being targeted by the big corporate bucks of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce (MMAC). We should have known that they were planning on getting nasty for Christmas when their mouthpiece compared supporters of sick days to terrorists. Apparently that kind of demagoguery is official policy at MMAC.

MMAC is apparently trying to use every legal loophole to thwart the will of the people while simultaneously making them pay needless legal bills. For what? Just because the people of Milwaukee put a priority on public health, lower-wage workers and their sick children.

Big business interests have always played the role of Chicken Little every time society has asked them to pay their fair share. Every time they claim that businesses will flee and jobs will be lost and every time their knee jerk claims are proven false. Paid sick days are no exception as it has already been done and has been a tremendous success. It looks like MMAC is not only content in playing the role of Chicken Little. Now they have decided to also play the role of the Grinch, the Grinch that wants to steal my sick days.

*This was originally posted to the One Wisconsin Now blog where I will be posting content until the end of the year.

“Just (Blindly) Trust Us!”

Earlier this week the state Government Accountability Board (GAB) told Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler to disclose what is in her family’s blind trusts. Ziegler asked that the GAB waive the full-disclosure requirement even though it is needed to avoid conflict-of-interest, the very thing that has gotten her in so much trouble in the recent past. As a GAB board member and former judge said, Ziegler has had “problems in the past understanding” rules that guard against conflicts. One particular sign that Ziegler is still tone deaf on this issue is the fact that her brother-in-law is designated as trustee.

In her letter to the GAB board (page 37) today’s Ziegler contradicts the Ziegler of last year. In it she argues as follows:

It is a near impossibility that a publicly traded company's stock value could ever be affected by a Wisconsin court decision, and even more unlikely that the
value of a Judge's portfolio may be affected by such a decision. If there is
concern that a Judge may rule for a company because they own stock, then the
concern is associated with the notion that the Judge seeks to gain from that
ruling. As a practical matter, any such gain would be next to impossible.

It seems that in addition to missing the point, Ziegler is also contradicting her own actions from last year. At that time, as a Washington County judge and candidate for the high court, she stepped down from a Wal-Mart case because she held significant stock in the company. She only did that a month after her financial interest was revealed, but she did it none-the-less. So if she stepped off the Wal-Mart case, why does she now say that such a conflict is really no big deal? Is it because she is not running for anything now? Some might call that the same “political gamesmanship” that she also bemoans in her letter to GAB.

Annette Ziegler is not the only state elected official that should be answering questions about blind trusts. Given GAB’s ruling, we should also be watching Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen. He also put his vast array of investments into a blind trust. Will he now seek a waiver or will he fully reveal his potential conflicts to the public?

I am certainly no expert on blind trusts, but there are a few things that I would be looking for if Van Hollen would opt for full disclosure. Is most of his wealth still wrapped up in the various family businesses? Does he still own hundreds of thousands of dollars in chemical industry stock? To the extent that his financial activity would be disclosed, has he finally paid off that “$50,000 or more” loan from his father that he reported on his Statement of Economic Interests? I seem to remember that arrangement raising a few eyebrows because it happened while he was gearing up for his AG run. In any case, there are many questions that would be answered if Van Hollen simply decided on full disclosure.

In the high positions that both Ziegler and Van Hollen hold, it is critical to give the public a full view of whatever financial interests that they have and if they are prone to any potential conflicts. Thus far it seems that these two state officials are telling both the GAB and the public to “just (blindly) trust us.”

*This was originally posted to the One Wisconsin Now blog where I will be posting content until the end of the year.

Back to the future and hoping for the best

While preparing to restart this blog I came across the audio of an interview that I did back in February on Madison's 92.1, The Mic.* I was the guest for the full hour with the very well-informed Lee Rayburn. The show focused on the Annette Ziegler and Michael Gableman campaigns for the state Supreme Court, both topics with which I am very familiar.

Listining nearly 10 months after the interview originally aired was actually very insightful. It was fascinating to look back on the facts at that time, and how things have transpired since. At that time, Ziegler had finally admitted to her ethical violations, while Michael Gableman was only beginning to commit his own. While it was clear at that time that Gableman was lying about specific items of fact, he had yet to commit the acts that now have him charged by the Judicial Commission. Ziegler has since both recieved and accepted the punishment of her peers while Gableman continues to cross shameful lines by fighting for his "right" to lie.

Gableman's attack on the Judicial Code will probably be the three ring circus that we fully expect it to be. While that will surely get its share of the headlines, we should also keep an eye on yet another right wing candidate running for the high court next year. After the Ziegler scandal of 2007, most of us hoped for something better in 2008. Unfortunately Gableman refused to learn from her mistakes and was intent on taking them to an entirely new level. Let's hope that Randy Koschnick departs entirely from the right wing pattern that has been set before him. Given some of the people that he has surrounded himself with so far and the playbook that he is already reusing, we have reason to worry. Even with that being said, we can still hope for the best: a civil campaign that focuses on substantive issues and real matters of law.

*If you would like to hear my February 26, 2008 interview with Lee Rayburn, you will find it available in the right column.

Note to Readers

All previous blog postings were done when my Eye on Wisconsin blog was hosted by Wispolitics/Wisopinion from late 2005-June 2006.* It is an archive of my blogging during that time. In May 2006, I was hired by what was then a brand new organization, One Wisconsin Now, as the blog editor. My blogs while at OWN (2006-2008) are available through the first link in the blog roll in the right column.

My time with OWN is coming to an end with the end of the the year, so I am resurrecting the Eye on Wisconsin blog. This is the primary place that I will be blogging from this day forward. I will also be contributing to other sites but Eye on Wisconsin will be my primary blogging home. Blogging may be rather light here until the first of the year, but with the new year will come new writing, new research and new opportunities.

*Content from Eye on Wisconsin prior to December 23, 2005 is no longer available.

Cory is Moving to One Wisconsin Now

It was in October of 2004 that I began the Eye on Wisconsin blog. I joke with friends that it started as a form of "therapy" to allow myself to vent regarding the 2004 Presidential Election. Not quite two years later, so much has changed for this blog. Last year I started providing investigative reports on a variety of issues. Not long after, to remain on the cutting edge, I produced and hosted the Eye on Wisconsin podcast. Not long after that, Eye on Wisconsin broke a couple stories that appeared in the AP and other outlets. Next I was honored to have the blog hosted at Wisopinion.com, the state's premier political news service. Then in only a year we saw over 50,000 hits at Eye on Wisconsin.

Now I am excited to take another new step, unfortunately this one involves leaving Eye on Wisconsin. As of today, I will no longer blog at Eye on Wisconsin. I am very excited to inform my readership that I am moving over to One Blog at One Wisconsin Now (OWN). One Wisconsin Now is the beginning of a long-term effort to re-light the flame of Wisconsin's proud progressive tradition. I will be serving as OWN's Netroots Coordinator and Editor of One Blog.

I am looking forward to all of the exciting possibilities that the future holds for OWN, for Wisconsin, and for our reinvigorated progressive movement. Thanks for your loyal readership and I hope that you will join me today at my new home, the One Blog.

Notice to Eye on Wisconsin Readers

I will be moving to a new blog starting tomorrow morning. I will provide you with my reasoning and the specific details at that time. Please stay tuned.

The Tale of "Two Americas" Revisited?

According to a report in the Washington Post, the U.S. is losing it's middle class neighborhoods. While at the same time the story reports that rich and poor neighborhoods are growing. The story relies on a Brookings Institution study that was released yesterday. It found that as a share of all urban and suburban neighborhoods, middle-income neighborhoods in the nation's 100 largest metro areas have declined from 58 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 2000.

This study seems to be consistent with a report in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel this week reporting the continuing decline in population in Milwaukee County (-2%). Specifically the Journal Sentinel report pointed out large decreases in 14 of Milwaukee's 18 suburbs. Many of those suburbs have been the bastion of Milwaukee County's middle class. The paper found that wealthier areas such as Waukesha(+5%), Ozaukee(+4.6%), and Washington (+7.4%) Counties saw large increases.

The Journal Sentinel story rhetorically asks why we should care about these population estimates. It quickly answers the question like this:

They show where homes, roads and shopping malls are being built, where jobs are created, how the overall quality of life is sustained.

During the 2004 Presidential Campaign John Edwards often spoke of the "Two Americas." It described an America where the wealthy added to their riches while the middle class struggled to stay out of the poor house. With few people in positions of power that are willing to do something about this problem, it seems that the trend will sadly continue in a downward spiral.

Discrimination Amendment Harms Our Principles

Yesterday the non-partisan group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign came out against the Discrimination Against Gays Amendment (ht to In Effect).

WDC takes a slightly different angle against the amendment than we usually hear. Take a look at part of the group's statement:

The effort to ban gay marriage and civil unions by amending the state Constitution does serious harm to the principles and institutions of democracy in Wisconsin, disrespects and disregards essential checks and balances in the policymaking process, and misuses the Constitution for purposes that are neither legitimate nor in keeping with the intentions of the Constitution's framers.

WDC goes on to list their three main objections to such an amendment: 1. Wisconsin's Constitution should not be used as an instrument of discrimination. 2. The process of amending the Constitution should not be used as an end-run around the normal lawmaking process. 3. The Constitution should not be used by any candidate for public office, political party or interest group to gain an electoral advantage.

"Health Courts" Unhealthy for Malpractice Victims

The U.S. Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee will be holding a hearing today to examine several medical malpractice issues. One of the concepts to be examined will be the idea of replacing judges and juries with a so-called "health court."

Several consumer groups have expressed their opposition to this change stating that it would take away a victim's right to a jury trial. In a press release, the group tells us what malpractice victims will face if this idea is realized:

"a vaguely defined administrative bureaucracy run by political appointees charged with developing uniform schedules of compensation for specific medical injuries." Experience with similar systems "strongly suggests that they will provide worse protection for patients than the civil justice system currently provides"

Perhaps the largest concern is for the most severely injured victim's of malpractice. Trying to fit their suffering and complicated injuries into some bureaucratic box is a fool's errand. Also the unsettling thought that such a political body could be forcefully lobbied by big insurance companies and others from the health industry give us yet another reason to dismiss such ideas.

Against the Old Poll Tax but for the New One?

The Republican run Congress is having to delay renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which eliminated many anti-black voting practices of the past. Apparently what caused the the delay was House Republican disagreement on providing bilingual ballots and continuing federal oversight of Southern states. This delay has also pushed back the U.S. Senate taking up the issue next week.

To his credit, F. James Sensenbrenner was right in the middle of the Republican fight with their own over the Voting Rights Act. He said that as a result of a dozen hearings in the Judiciary Committee, he believes that discrimination still exists and that the federal oversight should continue.

The above actions of F. James Sensenbrenner are admirable, but much of that good will is extinguished after his recent joint action with Republican candidate for governor Mark Green. As I have previously written, these two Republicans are insisting that Wisconsinites that register at the polls must provide a driver's license number. This is contrary to a ruling by the State Elections Board which approved the use of voters Social Security numbers. After that ruling the two Republican Congressmen ran to the U.S. Department of Justice to get an opinion on the State's ruling. The U.S. Department of Justice then came back telling the State that voter cannot use the social and must use the driver's license. That disagreement will likely continue in court.

It seems clear that this is a naked effort by Senensbrenner and Green to move us one step closer to requiring voter ID's to exercise voting rights in Wisconsin. A study by UW-Milwaukee shows us that requiring Voter ID's puts a disproportional burden on minorities, the elderly and students, among others. A Voter ID requirement in Georgia was overturned last year by a federal judge. That judge compared the Voter ID requirement to jim crow era poll taxes on black voters.

I guess the obvious question for F. James Sensenbrenner is why are you against the old poll tax while at the same time advocating for the new one?

Why Would 19 GOP Senators Oppose This?

Yesterday we learned that two of our soldiers in Iraq were killed and likely tortured beyond recognition. In the raw emotion of these events, the U.S. Senate acted in a rarely bipartisan fashion. They passed an Amendment that said the following:

"To express the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States."

Seems reasonable enough to me. The inexplicable point is that what should be a slam dunk amendment was opposed by 19 U.S. Senators. All of them Republicans, to include likely 2008 Presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona.

Now I did not hear debate on the issue (if there even was debate). But I am at a loss to explain their reasoning in voting against this amendment. Any ideas?

The Staggering Rise of Global Warming Pollution

The U.S. Public Interest Research Group just released a study on national and state trends in Carbon Dioxide emissions since 1960. Since our government has decided to allow global warming pollution to increase unchecked, the news is not good.

According to the report, from 1960 to 2001 the total U.S. increase in Carbon Dioxide emissions has risen by 95%. The regions with the largest rise was in the Southeast and the Gulf South, increasing 163% and 175% respectively. Among the states, Texas saw the largest increase in emissions having grown by 178%. Rounding out the top ten are Florida, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Missouri and Arizona.

From 1960-2001 Wisconsin's went up by 78%. During that time, the largest increases in Wisconsin were from 1960-1970 and from 1990-2001. For only the emissions in 2001, Wisconsin ranked 19th between Virginia and West Virginia.

Our Bad Image in the World is Costing Us

As George W. Bush is meeting with European leaders in Austria today, he may want to know that the image of the U.S. in the world seems to continue it's rapid decline. Apparently Bush appointing his trusted aide, Katherine Hughes, to help improve our image has not been very successful. Today in the Christian Science Monitor they report results of some recent polls.

Results of a new global attitudes survey by the Washington-based Pew Research Center show that a country's image of Americans is at least several percentage points higher than the same country's image of America as a nation. Bush's numbers are below both of those categories.

Another poll published this week by the Harris group shows that Europeans generally pick the US as the world's biggest threat to global security over Iran. This was true even in Britain, although Germans and Italians rank the US below Iran.

The story also asserts that this bad image in the world may be hitting us right in the pocket book in tourism dollars. According to the story, in 2002 the US brought in 9% of international travel. Today the number is down to 6%. According to the Travel Industry Association each percentage drop represents 150,000 jobs and $15 billion in spending.

Did Republicans Misplace Part of Their Press Release?

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin put out a press release yesterday entitled "Big Oil Gives Thousands to Mark Green." In the release they list the thousands of dollars in contributions that Mark Green has received from Big Oil.

In an attempt at "gotcha" politics, the Republican Party of Wisconsin sent out a press release this morning listing contributions to Doyle from oil companies (although not Big Oil companies like BP and Exxon Mobile).

The Democratic release had one thing that the today's Republican one lacks. A clear record of direct support to Big Oil through Mark Green's votes in Congress. Apparently Republicans could not find one thing that Doyle gave back to his oil company contributors. The Democratic Party went on to give a detailed list of Mark Green's votes supporting Big Oil:

In return, Mark Green:
Stood with Big Oil, voting for a $500 million subsidy for oil & gas companies [Source: HR5427, Vote 201,5/24/06]

Stood with Big Oil, voting for $5 billion in tax breaks, subsidies, and giveaways for Big Oil companies from tax bill [Source: HR4297, Vote #109, 4/27/06]

Stood with Big Oil, voting to give billions to oil companies [Source: HR6, Vote #445, 7/28/05]

Stood with Big Oil, voting against $15.5 million for energy efficiency [Source: HR2419, Vote #207, 5/24/05]

Stood with Big Oil, voting repeatedly to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) inAlaska [Source: HR5429, Vote 209, 5/25/06]

Stood with Big Oil, voting against cracking down on gas price gouging [Source: HR6, Vote #118, 4/20/05]

Stood with Big Oil, voting to give $13 billion in tax breaks and spending to oil companies, voted for drilling in ANWR, and voted to promote offshore drilling [Source: HR4, Vote #320, 8/1/01]

It looks like Big Oil's investment in Mark Green was a good one for them. All the while Green's constituents seem to only receive a gouging at the pump.

Fair Wisconsin Launches "$30 by June 30th"

Fair Wisconsin is the lead organization fighting what I call the Discrimination Against Gays Amendment (even though it is discriminatory against many other groups and people).

Fair Wisconsin has launched what they are calling the "$30 by June 30th"campaign. The idea is to donate 30 bucks to Fair Wisconsin by June 30th, then get a few friends to do the same. Their goal is to raise $30,000 during this effort.

Fair Wisconsin has already done so much to fight this proposed amendment and I have a feeling that they will keep fighting it in every way until the last vote is counted in November. So please consider helping them in any way that you are able.

Favoring Some Churches Over Others

What welcome news reported in today's Oshkosh NorthWestern!

In the last two weeks, more than 700 religious congregations have taken a public stand against the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin to ban civil unions and same-sex marriages.

According to the story, this represents over 500,000 congregants in Wisconsin. The story goes on to mention that even entire denominations and fellowships have taken a public stand against the discriminatory amendment.

An absurd and arrogant statement from Julaine Appling, coordinator of the Wisconsin Coalition for Traditional Marriage, is quoted in the story. In it she claims the following:

"The people of this state that have any idea about what the Bible says about marriage, they believe marriage is one man and one woman," Appling said. "And I think they'll go into the voting booth and say this is about whether a man and a woman comprise the institute of marriage, and they'll vote yes."

Let me try to get past the absolute arrogance of her comments and mention two things. 1. The fact that she is mentioning biblical interpretation as being the reason that people should vote for the amendment, is the very reason that the amendment should be rejected. It is an issue of personal and religious belief, not that of government policy and state law. 2. Why should the long arm of the government reach in and endorse any church's doctrine over that of another? Clearly we now know that not all churches think alike on this topic. Why invalidate the beliefs and values of one congregation while favoring another?

Congress Creates More Confusion for Vulnerable

Just last week we learned that the big Medicare Prescription Drug plan has continued to cause problems for some of our country's elderly. Some have even lost coverage because of the various glitches in the program.

Now we find that Congress has caused even more problems for the nations most vulnerable. When Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 they included in the legislation new regulations requiring residents to prove their citizenship when applying or renewing eligibility for various social programs. The regulations go into effect on July 1 and require people to provide a passport, birth certificate or other documentation before taking part in programs. Some of the programs that could be affected are Medicaid, BadgerCare, and SeniorCare.

A story in the Racine Journal-Times reports that State Officials worry that as many as 850,000 Wisconsinites may find these new regulations burdensome. The story continues to report the following:

The state now will have to set up a system to verify citizenship and figure out when they reapply for the program.

"For SeniorCare, we are going to have to create an entirely new process," Helgerson said.

An estimated 40,000 people will need to reapply from July though September.

Potentially putting all of these vulnerable people in jeopardy and for what reason? Keeping illegal immigrants from enrolling in these programs? For the most part, they are already barred from enrolling in the programs. As the story also points out, there are not large amounts of illegal immigrants finding their way into these programs in the first place.

It seems that in their frenzy to attack illegal immigrants, the leadership in Congress continue to throw out reason and good sense. It appears that the majority of people that could lose services will be the very people for whom they were created.