It's about time.

Yeah, Gundy allegedly never moved into his district after reapportionment. Looks like someone is finally trying to call him on it, according to the Racine Journal Times. Uncertainty surrounding his status is among the worst kept secrets in the Capitol (well, other than leggies behaving badly at The Bean and certain married leggies chasing tail) and it was only a matter of time before someone brought it up. For people who think I only exist to slash tires, I showed some admirable restraint on this one. Props to me.

People complained about John Gard, but at least he owned property back in Peshtigo. With Gundy, we've gone from owning a house and not really living in it to renting an apartment and maybe living in it. What's next? Subletting a bedroom? Getting a post office box?

P.S. Hey Wiggy, you took the counter down. How many days does Scott Newcomer have left?

Update: It's fair to remind everyone that these are simply allegations of skirting residency requirements. One can decide for himself whether or not it passes the smell test. Two readers also informed me that Channel 12 did a story on this, but I can't seem to find the footage on their website. If anyone knows where to find it, please email me at playgroundpolitics AT gmail DOT com and I would be more than happy to link to the footage.

For Governor: Jim Doyle, by default.

Playground Note: I wrote this on October 9th and strangely enough, save for adding one parenthetical and a paragraph at the end, I didn't have to rewrite any of it.

Mark Green has run the kind of campaign that gets you elected in the folksy, happy-go-lucky 8th District. Look at the history up there: Judy Krawczyk, Karl Van Roy, Carol Kelso, John Ryba, Dave Hansen, Gary Drzewiecki. People in Northeast Wisconsin like to vote for nice people who serve their constituents well. They have largely passed on the opportunity to nominate or elect younger individuals who may show more ambition from a policy standpoint - look at how Dave Steffen got spanked in the '02 Senate primary up there by Drzewiecki.

Green is running a campaign that will win in the 8th. It's fuzzy, it's got his family everywhere, he's missing lay-ups, listening to his iPod. Sitting in the football bleachers with a bunch of actors. That's dandy. But we're voting for governor, not Dad of the Year. Sadly, Mark's only made the case for the latter. And accordingly, the Playground offers its endorsement to the incumbent, Jim Doyle.

Green says his favorite band is U2. Hey, I like them too. Unfortunately for Green, if we were to summarize his campaign by choosing the title of just one U2 song, we'd have to pick "Running to Stand Still," because that's exactly what Mark Green is doing. He's running, but he's not going anywhere.

Doyle's people smartly recognized very early in this race that they could use the issue of stem cell research to drive an enormous emotional wedge in-between Mark Green and swing voters. That, coupled with Green's consistent but very conservative views on reproductive rights (e.g. allowing pharmacists to deny women birth control, no rape or incest exception for abortion) creep out a lot of people in the middle, especially women. I admire Green's adherence to his principles in these areas, because he had to know that these positions were going to cost him votes. (Funny that I wrote this on October 9th, and what have we seen in the last two weeks? Doyle running prominent ads featuring... drum roll... a Parkinson's sufferer and a rape victim. Doyle is playing the wedge issues perfectly.)

Also, to the chagrin of many conservatives, Doyle's managed to cobble together a record that can best be described as, well, "kinda." Doyle is kinda anti-tax, kinda pro-business, kinda pro-environment, kinda pro-regulatory reform. Business groups will tell you he could be more conservative, but he hasn't been terrible. Environmental groups will tell you that Doyle could be more liberal, but he hasn't been terrible.

Doyle has largely cultivated a record that plays well with moderate voters. He's stood up to the Republican Legislature and some of their ideas that would be brandished by most in the middle as extreme, things concealed carry. Most people support photo ID but that issue isn't anywhere near the top of the list in terms of importance. He was able to craft a property tax freeze that has effectively taken that weapon out of the GOP arsenal. He hasn't increased taxes. Sure, some fees have gone up, but from an intellectual standpoint, Republicans love user fees anyway. People are paying for they use. He signed the repeal of automatic indexing of the gas tax. Sure, he didn't have much choice, but he signed it. The state's economy is doing okay.

Mark Green just doesn't have a lot of ammunition that he can load in the gun. Talking about the concealed carry veto costs Green support in the middle. Complaining about how the property tax freeze wasn't tough enough gives Doyle an opening to talk about how a hard freeze would've jeopardized police and fire departments across the state. I'm not saying it would, but we all know that's what Doyle would say.

So Green has hammered on the only opening he's been given - ethics. And unfortunately, these issues aren't easy ones for voters to grab. The Adelman Travel matter isn't something that can be explained in ten seconds, especially considering that the state saved money by rebidding the contract. The Elections Board matter? Mark Green's stuck trying to get back a bunch of out-of-state money donated by Washington lobbyists.

Besides, Doyle smartly cemented in voters' heads a connection early-on between Mark Green and Jack Abramoff. Not that voters remember that guy anymore - with Mark Foley, Jack's become yesterday's news. But what Abramoff allowed Doyle to do was create an impression of "hey, this guy Green isn't perfect either." And having done that, the ethics issue becomes a colossal push. Green can't score big points with it because people are as suspect of the messenger as they are of the guy he's accusing.

Mark Green is about as nice and genuine as a politician can come. Unfortunately, his campaign plan appears to have been ripped out of a book entitled "Generic Campaign Plans for GOP Gubernatorial Candidates." There's nothing new there, or innovative, or exciting. It's just the same old ideas that Republicans have been selling for years, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. And since Mark Green is not the most exciting fellow, he's basically a stand-in, a cardboard cutout, for the Republican Party and the Republican agenda. In some years, that might've been enough. Not this year.

Green's campaign, in a few words, is boring. Lackluster. Just plain blah. And in politics, boring will never knock off an incumbent unless that incumbent steps in a huge pile of something during the race. Doyle doesn't have to make a case for being governor. He already is.

I wanted Mark Green to be a great candidate. I wanted him to make a case. Sadly, he hasn't. I crapped a lot on Scott Walker earlier this year, but I can guarantee you something - and I'm sure the Walker supporters would agree with me on at least part of the statement. I don't think Walker would've won, but at least Scott Walker would've had an agenda. You knew what Scott Walker was about. You knew what he wanted to do.

Mark Green says you should vote for him because Jim Doyle is a crook. Is there anything else there? Go watch all of his commercials on his website. Go. Find me a message other than "I'm a nice guy and I think the other guy is a total crook." That message you can't find is the one that would've won this race.

Mark Green was on Charlie Sykes earlier this week, and Charlie actually had to ask him why he thought he should be governor. A week before the election, the answer to that question should be so obvious that the question doesn't need asking. And if you can't concisely answer it in a year and a half, you have no business being governor.

Doyle's not great, but he's better than the alternative. The Playground offers a lukewarm endorsement for Jim Doyle, and wishes him luck playing goalkeeper against occasional Republican extremism for another four years.

Oh yeah, if you vote Doyle, you're voting for Barbara Lawton too. That's fine. Her art shows rule!

Wisconsin Firefighters Endorse Doyle, Falk

And truly, how could any group with a membership like this be wrong about anything?

(Photo by Mike DeVries/The Capital Times. Gee Mike, must've been a tough assignment.)

The world's going to heck...

... because Michele Bachmann (candidate in MN-6) appears to be hogging all of God's time and attention.

I'm all for Christian faith and belief in Christ, but hearing a politician talk like this still weirds me out. Seems like God tells Michele's husband to tell her to do a lot of things. And I'm still a little bit perplexed by her general assertion that God told lots of 527s to spend money in her race because Mark Foley likes boys.

Eh, watch it for yourself. Be prepared to feel as though someone is manipulating God in order to score votes. Read more here.

Elvis has entered the building for his campaign cameo

WisPolitics has footage of the new commercial that Tommy Thompson cut on Mark Green's behalf.

Is anyone surprised that in a tough race, this is what Green is getting out of the former governor? The Scott McCallum treatment, where Tommy waltzes in the last week, says a few words, and then leaves? Anyone ever getting the feeling that secretly he likes seeing that other people can't beat his longtime nemesis because it leaves people guessing if TGT is the only guy who could've gotten the job done?

Also, someone should tell the Green team that they should put the ad on their website before putting out the release saying that the ad is on their website. And webmaster, while you're at it, enough with that hokey webmercial on the front. It was fine for a week but it's been up there for four months now. Any good webmaster can tell you that stale content makes you look bad.

Follow-up on Millionaire's Amendment and the John Gard Telethon

Just to follow-up on the guest contribution by GOP Federal Insider #3, it would appear that we can unequivocally declare Steve Kagen the winner in the Millionaire's Amendment gambit. Whether or not it's enough to save his campaign is yet to be seen.

(Hey Steve, if your internals have you up, stay on script, buddy! No more injun jokes or plane jokes or North Korea jokes, okay? If it ain't on your index card, you don't talk about it!)

Steve Kagen loaned himself an additional 470K, which tripped the Millionaire's Amendment. Gard, on his updated FEC Form 11, listed Kagen's personal funds contribution at just over $1M.
Kevin seemed to suggest that this would lead to a John Gard feeding frenzy. Did it?

Well, not really. But considering the time limit, Gard did pretty well.

Close to the election, candidates are required to file FEC Form 6, which discloses all contributions of $1000 or more received within 20 days of the election. All receipts must be filed within 48 hours. In other words, it allows outsiders to see where the big money is coming from in a relatively quick timeframe. I'm sure Gard got some smaller contributions along the way, but these were the big hitters he was turning to in order to catch up to Kagen's loan.

Gard has filed two Form 6's this week: one on Tuesday, and one on Thursday. The Tuesday report, which includes Monday's and Tuesday's contributions, rang in at $69K. The Thursday report, which tallies receipts from Wednesday and Thursday, tipped the scales at $79,600.

So for the four days, Gard brought in nearly $150K in big money contributions. That's less than a third of what Kagen loaned himself in the last two weeks. And as explained earlier, the money that comes in from today on really only pays for contingencies, like last-minute automated calls and streamers for the election party. The fundraising race, for all intents and purposes, is over.

Where'd Gard find the big money? Well, $67K of it came from PACs or candidate committees. Big FOG's (Friends of Gard) include Abbott Labs ($5K), the Credit Unions ($5K), HALPAC - Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY, $5K), the Physical Therapists ($5K), and the Insurance and Financial Advisors ($2500).

The other $83K came from individual gifts. Big FOG's include Terry and Mary Kohler (ringing in the max for each, $8400 total), Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila ($4200), Dr. Mark and Margaret Gardon ($4200), Dr. Richard Harrison ($4200), and Launa Stayer ($5K).

Kabeer we all know. The good doctors are both neurosurgeons in Northeast Wisconsin and Launa is a VP at Johnsonville in Sheboygan. The Kohlers? Look around your bathroom or kitchen and figure that one out for yourself. Surely we can sense that the Kagen folks are cutting the ad right now accusing John Gard of being in the back pocket of the neurosurgeon, bratwurst, plumbing, and D-line lobbies.

Also, to Gard's credit, he found 30% of the big money not just inside Wisconsin, but inside his own district. Northeast Wisconsin is slowly turning white collar, but it's hardly like looking for money in suburban Milwaukee.

So what's the big picture? On the final day of the last reporting period (October 18th), Gard reported $236K in cash-on-hand, while Kagen had just $86K left. That put Gard at about an 11 to 4 advantage, nearly three times as much money in the bank.

And where are we just a week later? Again, ignoring contributions under $1K (and minus expenditures in the last week), Gard is at $385K. Kagen's loan rings him in $486K, putting him at a 5 to 4 advantage. Plus, Kagen had the money in hand earlier in the week, which is an important consideration as time winds down on the race.

If Kagen loses, of course, these last two loans are probably another $470K he never gets back. However, Kagen is on the hook for over $2 million between the general and the primary, and as mentioned in the previous post, it's a lot easier to pay back those personal loans as an incumbent than as a rich, defeated millionaire.

Think of it like poker. By this point, Kagen had already dropped a million and a half in the pot. And by all accounts, Kagen's got a decent hand in this race, probably a 50-50 shot of winning it all. So for Kagen to throw in another dollar for every three he's already dropped is probably a smarter move than folding the hand altogether.

By dropping the final loan, Kagen leveled the financial playing field. Guess we'll see next week what all this money is buying the two candidates.

Sometimes you, the readers, are brilliant!

I got this comment on the post about the ad done in response to the Michael J. Fox commercial running in targeted races. It's so funny and so true, I couldn't let it just get buried.

To you anonymous, I tip my hat:

What I love best about the picture you have from the Heaton commercial is the play button is right over her mouth, looking like a giant piece of tape. Oh that it were. Sanctimonious bitch is all about God's plan until it's a part of her body she doesn't like. Then the scalpel fixes it or enlarges it, for her. But that's ok.

I think the surgery actually made her boobs smaller, but let's not split hairs. This comment is otherwise perfect. The Russian judge gives it a 9.95.

I Just Blogged To Say I Hate You: The Dead End of Republican Punditry

David Weigel has a great column up over on Reason Online (Reason: What thinking Republicans read.). The title is above. Here's a tasty morsel:

The problem isn't that (Republican) authors and bloggers are negative. Hey, that's campaigning. The problem is their lack of ideas, their lack of a defense of the GOP, their lack of interest in justifying the party to its former faithful. They hate being told that the beloved party might need to be kicked into the minority to rediscover its reason for being. They hate it so much that they can provide scary pictures of Nancy Pelosi, nasty names for anti-PATRIOT Act Democrat Jon Tester, and even more evidence that they desperately need a little time back on the bench.

I, for one, am shocked by Weigel's assessment. I thought blogs peppered with clever phrases like "Hitlary" and "Dimowit" were signs of evolved, higher-level thought that I had not yet attained.

(Also, while you're over there, you should read Radley Balko's column on the GOP's ill-conceived efforts to rid America of the scourge of online poker. Yet another reason not to vote Republican this fall, like I needed any more.)

B-List, Anti-Stem Cell Research Celebrities Cut Political Ad With Sony Handycam

The Drudge Report alleges that this ad is the big silver bullet in Missouri, in response to Michael J. Fox's ad on Claire McCaskill's behalf.

Let's see... we've got bad lighting, Handycam-quality footage, some guy babbling in Aramaic, a former Super Bowl MVP speaking in a series of awkward, three-word sentences, a guy who's been stuck on the Royals his whole career and has the scriptreading skills of a kindergartener doing Washington's crossing of the Delaware, and a journeyman pitcher with a 4.61 career ERA who'll probably blow Game 4 for the Cards.

Oh yeah, and Patty Heaton. I almost forgot about her. Just like the rest of America.

Is this really the best the anti-Amendment 2 crowd could find? This could be the cast of next season's The Surreal Life.

In the interest of equal time, I invite you to watch and enjoy. I know I did.




Also, let me invite you to saunter over to The Diamond Mine, where Dave has a copy of the Doyle ad with Michael J. Fox up. Congratulations on finding it on YouTube before me, Dave. While there, please take note of how Rush Limbaugh is still a colossal idiot. Someone please remind him that saying stuff like that is what makes soccer moms and moderates think Republicans are all a bunch of insensitive fools.

Great Moments in Modern Conservative Thought: Alex P. Keaton Edition

I saw this ad over the weekend. Talk about cutting through the noise and the clutter of a contested race. This might be the single most effective ad of the entire '06 cycle.

It's amazing to me how consultants sometimes forget that the most powerful political ads are the ones that approach voters directly and honestly, and where simple visual imagery speaks far louder than one's words ever could.

No cute graphics. No cheesy background music. No missed lay-ups or listening to an iPod or hiring actors to sit in the stands with you and read lines about the UW. Just one man that everyone knows and his very real message to voters.





For the record, Fox has cut a similar ad for Ben Cardin in Maryland and, according to an AP story today, for Jim Doyle here in Wisconsin. Given when the McCaskill and Cardin ads went up, I'd guess you'll probably be seeing the Doyle ad in the next few days. Good luck to the Green Team in responding. Your dazzling and effective ad campaign is why you make the big money and I'm just out here blogging.

And without further ado, your latest edition of Great Moments in Modern Conservative Thought, courtesy of our good friends at Free Republic. But first, let me note for the record that Michael J. Fox is indeed an American citizen by his own free will, not by accident of birth like most of us.

The selfish Fox should spend more time with a Bible rather than whining against the will of God.

Hey Michael, go back to Canada and get on the list to see a specialist for Parkinsons disease.

Michael J. Fox, the late Christopher Reeve and other celebrities are just useful idiots in the scam. I don't think Fox is that bad but he's vulnerable since he suffers from Parkinson's disease and anything he says can be spun by the embryonic stem cell research crowd.

One thing about Michael J., has anyone else noticed that he skips his meds whenever he has to appear in public for a Parkinson's event?

fox should beg HIS OWN GOVERNMENT (Canada) to fund it! Just because he played an American on TV, does not mean we have to respect his spewing of crap here... even if he bought himself an American Citizenship!

Indian Time and Political Hypocrisy

Steve Kagen didn't intend anything derogatory by using the phrase "Indian time," no more than Carol Owens was intending to be derogatory when she went on her famous monologue about colored people on the radio back in 2001.

Interestingly, John Gard wasn't telling everyone back in '02 that Carol's remarks showed that she wasn't fit to serve in John Gard's Republican majority. But "Indian time" is apparently a major disqualifier for public office.

Gard's hardly alone in his lustful desire for rank opportunism. Politicians on both sides of the aisle cheapen debate by pursuing these matters. And of course, we know that cheapening the debate is the specialty of those on squawk radio in Milwaukee, so it's no wonder that Gard pushed the matter. He's still used to taking his marching orders from Herr Sykes and Herr Belling.

You want derogatory and unfit for public office? That'd be looking at an Indian kid who's the only minority in the room, getting on the stick, pointing in his direction, and calling him macaca. Twice. Then lie about your Jewish heritage, and when you finally admit to it, make some ham sandwich and pork chop jokes.

John, do us a favor. Talk about things people actually care about and stop posing for holy pictures next to your opponent's use of vernacular language. And tell Kagen the next time you see him as well to clean his act up too. Word is that everyone in Northeast Wisconsin is pretty much sick and tired of the negative garbage that both of you are peddling.

Perhaps next week I'll have to endorse Mickey Mouse in the 8th over the two assclowns who want to be Congressmen.

Thanks!

Just a brief note of thanks to the folks over at FreedomWorks, who kindly took note of my earlier post about Dick Armey and why the Republicans would be wise to listen to him.

I'm not on board with the entire agenda that FreedomWorks pushes, but theirs is certainly a rational and well-informed perspective and I'm flattered by their acknowledgement.

Thoughts on Kagen and the Millionaire's Amendment

Any smart blogger knows when to call in the troops for assistance. And after reading this post on BBA about how Kagen invoking the Millionaire's Amendment is somehow a fantastic thing for John Gard, well, it just didn't wash in my mind.

So instead of muddling through it, I made a call to a good friend, let's call this friend GOP Federal Insider #3. Insider #3 spent many years making a living doing finance for high-profile GOP candidates.

Last night, I asked my friend to read the post and give me a take on how this will all play out in the coming weeks. And without further ado, here are said friend's collected thoughts on Kagen, Gard, the Millionaire's Amendment, and all the crap that goes with bringing in the money.

Enjoy.

--------------------------

First, let's be clear that the post you had me read shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the MA. The MA only gives Gard increased individual contributions and coordinated spending up to the amount that is basically equal to whatever Kagen gave himself, minus whatever Gard may have given himself. There's a formula, but it's not worth getting into. What matters is that Gard's FEC Form 11 has Kagen pegged at $702K and change.

Kagen timed this thing like he should have. His campaign probably had a plan to use personal money to make their final big round of ad buys if they weren't at their fundraising goals. No doubt that's what he's spending the $470K on, unless he's buying a building in which to make GOTV calls. And remember, Kagen's gotta play to win at this point if he has any hope of getting that money back. If he doesn't win, wish him luck trying to recover the $2M he's loaned himself. Defeated millionaires have a harder time raising money than millionaire incumbents.

Kagen can begin spending his $470K the moment he donates it. Doing it on Friday screws over Gard's fundraising staff. Have you ever tried making money calls between end of business Friday and Monday morning? Unless they're close friends, most people don't want to be hit up for cash on the weekend. It's the weekend. They want you to leave them alone.

Can Gard find $700K? Well, he's raised $2M so far, so this is asking him to raise 35% of what he's taken in. Steep task, but it'd easily be doable if Gard had more time.

But that's the problem. He really doesn't have a lot of time.

First, Gard is probably going to have to put in some serious phone time to make it happen. Asking a husband and wife who are maxed out to give you another $8400 or $4200, or even just $2000, isn't a call you can have your assistant fundraiser make. If you know it's a slam dunk or a really gung-ho supporter, maybe your finance director or even campaign manager can do it. If they were smart, they would have alerted their donors to this prospect the moment Kagen won the primary, and gauged if they could come back for more should something like this happen. That way they've got a list of easy money.

Otherwise, the candidate's gonna be on the phone. And for every hour the candidate's on the phone, he's not meeting voters or doing something else. Raising money is the last place you want your guy two weeks out. And it's gotta be by phone, unless you already had a big fundraising event planned for this week. I doubt Gard had more than one event this week - smart, effective campaigns wind fundraising down by the end of last week, because...

At this point in a cycle all you're really buying is airtime. You aren't buying lit or yard signs - you've got all that crap already. You're buying TV and radio. Most TV and radio stations line up their ads 5 days ahead. That means the drop dead date for buying airtime before the election is probably this Thursday - maybe Friday AM at the latest.

For those who have not been involved in a big time campaign, with major media buys, all you need to run an ad is money and an ad - but it's not that easy. Right now, Gard's media people and campaign manager know how much they want to spend on ads Monday 10/30 through Sunday 11/5. They have a number. And they need to have that number on hand by the time campaign staff make the deposits on Thursday. So Thursday at noon the campaign manager gets his/her email with the daily totals, and a bank account balance. Then they decide how much money to spend on ads. Once that is done, the campaign wires the funds from the bank account to the account of their media firm. Sometime that afternoon the media firm then contacts the TV and radio stations with the ad buy and wires them the money or sends them a certified check via Fri AM Fed Ex.

That means that all of Gard's new money has to be in by Thursday morning. Anything received on Friday or over the weekend is only good for Monday 11/6 and Election Day media or paying the caterer for the election party.

So time is of the essence and my guess is that as of right now, Gard is pretty tired of reaching voice mails. However, a sore ear isn't his only problem today.

Look at that district - between the 8th CD, the Gov race, the AG race, and the gay marriage amendment, most of the good ad time is gone already and Kagen's gonna use that $470K to buy everything that's left. Anyone buying on Thursday probably won't be debating between the ABC and NBC local news, they're going to be debating between Iron Chef and the 2 AM rerun of Colbert.

So Gard's probably glued to the phone. Unless he's going to arrange himself a huge loan and pay himself back later (or take a boatload of coordinated party money), he's going to need these checks in his bank account no later than Thursday Morning. Smart donors would put it on a credit card - it processes faster. Of course, credit card companies skim 7% off the top, and that's if you have arranged a good agreement with them. 7% suddenly makes an $8400 donation $7800.

But a lot of these people like to write checks. It's just what they're used to. If Gard is going out of state, he's going to need people to overnight the checks, which is a pain in the ass, unless their secretaries do it. But it's the only way the money's gonna get there on time. He needs the money in the bank on Thursday to be able to wire the money to the media firm so the firm can do the ad buys on that afternoon.

In other words, John Gard pretty much has 48-72 hours to raise $700K. I think Kagen looked at those numbers and liked his odds. Gard will make Dr. Millionaire jokes and Kagen will come back with talking about Gard's raising all this money out-of-district. People hate millionaires and out-of-district money, so it's probably a wash.

Any money you have on hand a week out from the election is basically worthless. You've already bought everything that needs buying - air time, yard signs, GOTV. It's done. At that point, it's all GOTV, earned media, and trying not to get screwed by a last-minute surprise. And if you've blow all of your cash on hand on ads, there goes the the 10-20k of insurance cash needed to pay for the automated calls to let voters know that John Gard really isn't the cocksucker that Kagen's campaign just said he is.

By the way, half a dozen other federal candidates dropped themselves mad money on Friday afternoon too, Republicans and Democrats. Everyone's reading the tea leaves the same way on this.

Hope that helps. Good to see the Packers finally win one.

- GOP Federal Insider #3

Fawlty Logic

Welcome to Fawlty Logic, another new semi-regular feature here on the Playground devoted to exposing, well, faulty logic. Or sometimes, the simple absence of logic.

Today, I couldn't help but chuckle at the latest efforts of Madison's Ann Coulter (link in sidebar), who had the following to say about Illinois Senator and political heartthrob Barack Obama:

Isn't Obama a little young in his political career (to run for president)? When he was first elected, the common theme was that after a few elections, he might consider it. But now? Perhaps this represents some unease with the choices the Democratic Party is currently faced with.

Wow, the silliness just never ends over there does it? Readers, I think we can get through the following math without a calculator. Why? Because I believe in you.

Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996. He served four terms - eight years - before his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004. If he were elected President in 2008, he would be sworn in with 12 years of experience as an officeholder, eight at the state level, four at the federal level.

George W. Bush was Governor of Texas for six years before being elected President. He held no elective office prior to that. He had six years of experience at the state level, and no experience at the federal level.

So what have we then? Does the writer believe that the work of state legislators is meaningless? Does she believe that serving 1 1/2 terms as Governor is more valuable than 12 years of service in the legislative branch? Was the GOP twice as uneasy to nominate a guy with half as much experience as Obama? Or is author simply so eager to bash a Democrat at 1:41 in the morning that critical thinking skills are left by the wayside?

Or maybe those skills were stolen from the same copy room where Mark Miller's campaign plan walked off from. I hear people in that vicinity have sticky fingers.

Update: Thanks to a longtime reader for sharing this humorous editorial on Barackamania.

If Armey were running the show, maybe I'd still be voting Republican.

So sayeth Dick Armey:

“The Republicans are talking about things like gay marriage and so forth, and the Democrats are talking about the things people care about, like how do I pay my bills?"

My increasing disaffiliation with the Republican Party has everything to do with the manner in which Republicans have come to be the whimpering servants of the forces of evangelical extremism. Goodness, how things have changed in the 12 years since Republicans swept their way back into power, in large part because of a little document that Armey largely wrote himself.

You might remember it. It was called the Contract with America. It helped to galvanize those Republicans fearful of the big government agenda pushed by the Clintons and the Democratic Congress. It gave the wide swath voters in the middle who vote primarily on pocketbook issues a workable alternative.

The result? A 52-seat pickup in the House. Nine seats in the Senate.

What'd the Contract talk about? A balanced budget amendment. Line-item veto. Welfare reform. Tort reform. Middle class tax cuts. Term limits. Truth-in-sentencing.

What didn't the Contract talk about? School prayer. Gay marriage. Abortion. Pharmacist's conscience clause. Terri Schiavo. Gay adoption. Applying anti-gambling laws to the Internet. You know, all the stuff that guys like James Dobson think Republicans should be shoving down our throats.

The problem with Republican leadership at the national and state level is that they've forgotten Newt Gingrich's 60% rule. It was the 60% rule that guided the development of the Contract. No item was eligible for inclusion in the Contract unless it had the support of more than 60% of the American people.

As a result, Republicans swept into power on a document that appealed to Americans in the broadest possible sense. They had an effective mandate to govern. They helped President Clinton to balance the budget and guide this nation to a surplus for the first time in decades. They kept reasonable limits on government spending. It was only when Republicans pursued non-60% issues, like the impeachment of President Clinton, that they got slapped at the ballot box. Does anyone doubt that the Clinton impeachment made the evangelicals happier than it made the fiscal conservatives?

And so here we are now. Whereas a decade ago, Republicans were serious about fiscal issues and paid lip service to James Dobson's crowd, today the tables are turned. At every corner, Republicans seem to have some new bill that the evangelicals adore. And instead of adhering to fiscal conservatism as a governing belief, they throw out gimmicks like TABOR, hoping the small government crowd doesn't notice the emptiness behind the promise. If Republicans just governed responsibly, TABOR wouldn't be necessary.

Republicans will often suggest that the reason African-Americans don't wield more political clout is that they put all of their eggs in one basket. Because blacks seem unwilling to jump the fence and vote Republican, Democrats have come to take their votes for granted. Democrats don't have to necessarily deliver on their concerns because African-Americans are too afraid to walk out.

The Republicans' problem is that the same situation is brewing within their own party. When they look at exit polls the day after the election, they're going to see a voting population that believes Democrats are better on the economy and as good or better on taxes. They're going to shake their heads and wonder what happened.

Simple. Unlike black voters, we're leaving. We don't buy your demonization of the Democrats. And even if we did, the only way you're ever going to get your act together is if we take a hike for awhile. I'll put up with Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a few years if it's the thing that helps you to get your friggin' act together.

Instead of crafting a message that will capture a 60% majority of a large portion of the electorate, you continue to peddle an agenda that is designed to squeeze every last vote out of a very narrow segment of likely voters, an agenda that simultaneously marginalizes moderates and social libertarians. Unfortunately, your turnip is out of blood.

Wisconsin may not notice this shift as dramatically because Legislative Democrats continue their legendary displays of ineptness on the battlefield. I wasn't shocked to hear that someone had discovered the Senate Democrats' campaign plan so much as I was shocked to hear that they even had one to begin with. Seriously, I think Mark Miller may have had the only copy, and I guess he lost it six months ago.

Legislative Democrats have once again failed to remember that if you want to govern, you actually have to develop an agenda to put in front of the voters, one that consists of more than "Republicans suck." At this point, I'd say they'll be lucky to pick up 1-2 seats in the Senate and 2-3 seats in the Assembly - this in a year when an effective agenda should easily double those numbers. C'mon. If Scott Jensen could pick up six seats in 1992, there's no reason Assembly Democrats shouldn't be picking up at least six seats in a year when virtually EVERY political indicator is pointing in their direction.

Okay, there's one reason. Colossal ineptitude. But I digress.

Republicans nationally are set up to lose the House, something every Republican source seems willing to concede. Their chances of holding the Senate are probably 50-50, and even if they do, they'll have an unworkable majority. And it's all because they've completely forgotten to dance with the girl they brought. We're tired of you constantly going over to the punch bowl to flirt with that Bible-thumper. We're tired of waiting.

Screw you, guys. We're going home.

Sound and fury signifying nothing... at least yet.

Bob in Rep. Jones' office is planning on attending a fundraiser for Rep. Smith in the evening, and is planning on heading there straight from work. At 4 o'clock, Bob realizes that he forgot the directions to the fundraiser. From his state-owned computer at his state-owned desk, Bob goes onto Wheeler, gets the address for the fundraiser, enters the address into Google Maps, and prints off the directions on his state-owned printer. Should we throw Bob in jail?

Diane and Stephanie are co-workers at the Capitol. Diane works for Stephanie's legislator and has a bunch of campaign lit left over in her car from the weekend. Stephanie offers to drop a couple of neighborhoods around her house as a favor to Diane. Diane gets some lit from her trunk over her lunch hour and brings it to Stephanie in her office. Should we throw Diane and Stephanie in jail?

The job security of legislative employees lies entirely upon success in the political realm. You can pick through my archives and see that I think it's an exercise in sheer absurdity to break out the microscope and try to delineate between political and legislative duties. But I can appreciate the concerns that some individuals have raised, and based on history, I believe the Legislature provides its employees with adequate instruction in regards of applicable law.

I think reasonable people can agree in a macro-level sense when something just doesn't seem right. But sometimes it's harder to judge specific instances without understanding the context or intent of the action.

In the aforementioned instances, I think most people would agree (Mike McCabe obviously excepted) that what Bob has really done amounts to incidental personal use of a work resource. Diane is bringing the lit to Stephanie at work because it happens to be the most convenient place for Diane to do that. People in all walks of life and in all kinds of jobs do these sorts of things every day.

Somewhere in the private sector, Jack uses his work phone to call his wife Jane to make sure that little Jimmy gets picked up from soccer practice at 5:30. The next day, Jane sends Jack an email to his work account reminding him to order that birthday gift on Amazon for Aunt Jenny. Rather than relying on his forgetful mind, Jack takes five minutes to do it from his terminal at work and prints a copy of the receipt for his records.

Should Jack's boss fire him if the company policy says that incidental personal use of work resources is allowed? Again, I think most reasonable people would think that Jack's actions are acceptable, unless they are part of an ongoing pattern in which Jack is managing his entire life on the clock.

I have no idea what goes on in this magic room marked "private" that Owen discusses. It's probably no more a caucus than the assorted Republican staffers in legislative offices who are designated to assist all caucus members with media. If Democratic staffers are sitting in a room in the Capitol plotting campaign strategies and designing lit on a state computer all while on the state dime, I think everyone would agree that doesn't pass the smell test.

Do I believe that a Democratic staffer was dumb enough to leave a bunch of political documents in the copier? Not really. Do I believe Mark Miller when he practically suggests that Republican staffers were digging through his belongings looking for campaign material? Not really.

Well, maybe a few of them would.

To assume that this is somehow Democratic sloppiness around the office equipment is about as big of a reach as assuming that Robin Vos was the one conveniently leaving the photocopies of his Match.com profile around the Capitol copy rooms last year. Nobody is that dumb, especially considering that Mark Miller shares the annex he describes with a Republican. (By the way, Robin, congrats on that MJS endorsem... oh wait, they recommended your opponent. Even while finding great things to say about Kleefisch and Vukmir, both of whom are just as conservative as you are.)

If this six month old "discovery" is somehow the tip of the iceberg - if there's something bigger behind it all - then of course that should be looked into. But to hear that a political document has been found floating around the State Capitol and then watch conservative bloggers feign shock and surprise while simultaneously doing their best Mike McCabe impressions?

Spare me. It's like being bukakked with stupid.

Oh, what a difference six years makes

I seem to recall that back in 2000, Democrats made a big stink about how certain ballots in Florida were confusing and made it difficult to decipher who one was voting for. They argued that it was important that ballots be clear and easy to understand.

Fast forward to 2006, where Democrats are now suing to prevent slips of paper from being handed out in Florida's 16th Congressional District to inform voters that a vote for Mark Foley is, in reality, a vote for his replacement, Joe Negron. The Democrats would apparently prefer that some voters be ignorant of that fact and allowed to believe that the race is between Democrat Tim Mahoney and the disgraced former Congressman.

This is laughable, and at the same time, completely disgraceful - moreso when you consider that Negron isn't the only candidate mentioned in the clarification...

The attorney for the Florida State Supervisors of Elections gave local supervisors recommended language for the notice, which also would tell voters that votes cast for Democrat Tim Mahoney will count for Mahoney and votes cast for Emmie Ross, who has no party affiliation, will count for Ross.

How explaining a potentially confusing situation constitutes political favoritism is beyond me.

I wonder if Steve Kagen is hungry today...

... because John Gard ate his lunch last night.

That isn't to say it was a knockout, but it's clear that when it comes to most issues, Gard has a breadth of knowledge that Kagen doesn't quite possess. Kagen seems wedded to his talking points. He's best on health care and everything else seems a little awkward.

Gard, on the other hand, makes his points without sounding like he's taking them off an index card. I'm not sure that everything we've done in Wisconsin necessarily translates on the national level, but Gard's at least got things he can talk about to fill a two minute answer. It's one area where Gard's experience is certainly helpful.

If I knew nothing about politics and watched this debate, I'd probably be comfortable with either Gard or Kagen as my congressman. But Gard definitely sounds like his learning curve in Washington would be a lot less steep.

Video here.

Losing makes Rick Santorum NUTS

And truthfully, Bob Casey doesn't look much better in this excellent clip from Thursday night's debate.

The Governor's Race: Things to Consider

I'll be straight with you: I think pigs will fly before Ed Thompson offers an endorsement to either Jim Doyle or Mark Green. But the numbers from 2002 may have some light to shed on where we're at right now in the 2006 gubernatorial campaign.

Right now, Real Clear Politics gives Jim Doyle a 4.7 point lead, 46.7-42, with 10.3 percent undecided. The folks at Pollster.com show similar numbers, Doyle up 46-42, with the rest undecided or committed to third party candidates.

Now, as a refresher, take a look at the final numbers from the 2002 gubernatorial race:

Jim Doyle: 45.2%
Scott McCallum: 41.4%
Ed Thompson: 10.5%
Jim Young: 2.5%

As you can see, the current Doyle/Green numbers are almost dead on with the Doyle/McCallum numbers of four years ago. It's quite plausible that where we're at is a point where Mark Green has basically locked up the McCallum voters, and Doyle is carrying all of his original support from 2002. This invites the obvious question: is the Ed Thompson voter the key to the 2006 election?

Libertarians and centrists are tough nuts to crack because they view both parties with some contempt. They're suspicious of the Democratic propensity to spend money and create new government programs. At the same time, they're usually suspicious of the Republican propensity to meddle in the personal lives of individuals on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Republicans haven't exactly been great on spending issues at the national level either.

It's also hard to estimate the resolve of Jim Young's voters, as the Green Party did not have a candidate on the gubernatorial ballot in 1998. Third party candidates tend to benefit from elections with an obvious outcome, as voters can stray from the two major parties without the fear that their vote is being "thrown away." Doyle's victory four years ago was all but certain two weeks out from the election. And Green candidate Nelson Eisman is hardly getting the attention that Jim Young got in '02. So perhaps it's possible that in a close race, Doyle can pull half of the Green Party support, people who'll swallow hard and vote Doyle as a defensive strategy against Mark Green. That extra 1.0-1.5 points could be crucial.

The final point worth considering is Wisconsin's storied history of mucking up partisan control of state government. Wisconsin seems to like divided government - a lot. Even since the Republicans made their big move in 1994, they've rarely had control of both houses of the legislature and the governor's office. The Senate changed parties more often during the 90's than Nancy Nusbaum.

The thought of a Republican legislature and Mark Green railroading through legislation on abortion, concealed carry, birth control, school prayer, or whatever other social issues the Republicans decide to push isn't going to sit well with an undecided voter. And while he's been nice to the Legislative Dems so far, it'll be interesting to see if Governor Doyle, at some point, tries to paint himself as the sole defender against Republican extremism. This argument, of course, implies a certain lack of confidence in the abilities of Senate Dems to grab three seats in November.

The person who wins this horse race in 3 1/2 weeks may be the person whose team can find a way to most effectively reach these disenchanted voters in the middle; the ones who shun party labels and strongly disapprove of the kind of partisan warfare that the major parties increasingly represent.

Can't wait for this to show up on YouTube

Gotta love those wacky contestants from The Apprentice:

BROWNSVILLE (AP) - A Pennsylvania congressional candidate and former reality-TV star used an elephant and a six-piece mariachi band for an elaborate political stunt designed to make a point about border security.

More here.

Basic Rules of Politics

Rule #86: Background music with lyrics? Never a good idea in a political ad. The black and white photo with renowned moderates Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein probably won't help either.

Interesting.

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded today to, of all things, an economist. Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank received the prize in recognition of their ongoing efforts in the field of microlending. Where microlending was once laughed at, it's now recognized as a valuable component in the war on poverty, largely through the pioneering efforts of Yunus and his colleagues. It's also an interesting synthesis, encouraging the development of capitalism through the lens of social justice.

Also curious is how this choice by the Norwegian Nobel Committee appears to continue its focus on ongoing efforts to improve the human condition rather than on individuals and organizations whose efforts have reached some kind of completion. It seems to be a shift in philosophy, a recognition that the struggle for peace and justice is an eternal one that needs to be nurtured and sustained continuously.

The committee also hosts a pretty big concert, proving that they are indeed much cooler and hipper than the committees who select the other Nobel laureates. Of course, the other committees are Swedish. Maybe Norwegians are just cooler than Swedes.

Frankly, Lasee's got a point.

Rep. Frank Lasee has taken a lot of grief from a lot of people regarding his recent proposal to allow teachers to carry firearms. Hell, the guy got Stephen Colbert to build the Word around him a few nights ago. This might not be the corner of the blogosphere he would ordinarily expect a defense from, but he's going to get it.

Hearkening back to my own school days, I believe the standard operating procedure for a lockdown was to lock the exterior door to the classroom, turn off the lights, pull the blinds, and move to the back of the room away from the door. Now, that's all well and good until the nut with the gun blows the doorknob off the door and is standing in the middle of the room.

Then what? High-pitched squealing? Assault the attacker with blackboard erasers?

I think Lasee's original proposal probably went too far. To his credit, he took a lot of the initial input and came back with a proposal that is more reasonable than what was first suggested. He probably could've gotten that input if he'd bothered to run it by half a dozen people before putting it on the market, but that's not the point.

I don't think there are many people who want to turn our schools into the OK Corral. But the "then what?" scenario outlined above is hardly an attractive one.

Said Lasee, "I think everyone who's willing to shoot at my idea should come up and put their ideas on the table. Its not enough to just to say 'We don't like your idea.' We need to hear their proposals on how to make kids safer in Wisconsin."

I agree completely. We need to have a constructive dialogue on issues like school safety, something legislators have not always been so hot at in recent years. Whether the final product involves guns or not, let's hope they can turn the corner and find some solutions.

Great Moments in Local Conservative Thought: Under the Dome edition

"Tell me something, is it better to be a closet Democrat or a closet homosexual?" - Jenna


(I know the gay marriage amendment is a hot topic these days but before anyone out there even tries to make the connection, let me say that this isn't at all intended to reflect on the quoted's boss/supervisor. He's a nice guy and a conscientious legislator. And to my readers, especially the Democrats and homosexuals, I ask you this: Is this being derogatory towards Democrats, gays, or is it simply the dumbest rhetorical question ever presented in a public forum?)

Kagen to announce "major" Republican endorsement tomorrow

Who's the mystery guest at Steve Kagen's announcement tomorrow morning? I'll put five bucks on Terri McCormick. And if it is her, does that mean we can logically assume that Bob Dohnal's endorsement will carry over to John Gard's Democratic opponent as well?

Borrowed logic.

Today, Jenna linked to a story in The New York Times, a paper that Jenna probably shouldn't be reading since all their reporters are guilty of treason. The story is about a female teacher who allegedly has spent the better part of 25+ years getting her freak on with her male students while supervisors ignored her pattern of behavior.

Jenna then asks "Why is anyone eager to send their kids to public schools anymore?" as though a story about one teacher in New Jersey is somehow evidence of a pattern of behavior among all public schoolteachers that should cause parents everywhere to feel threatened.

I would now like to take this same logic and apply it to a similar situation currently playing out in politics.

Jenna:

Teacher has sex with underage students.

Administrators knew about her history and looked the other way.

All public schools are filled with filthy sex hounds abusing their authority and since society doesn't condone that behavior, parents shouldn't send their kids to public schools.

Recess Supervisor:

Mark Foley, a Republican, likes dirty chat with underage pages.

Republican leaders knew about his history and looked the other way.

Congress is filled with filthy Republican sex hounds abusing their authority and since society doesn't condone that behavior, voters shouldn't send any Republicans to Congress.

Works for me.

Great Moments in Modern Conservative Thought

Tonight, I offer you, my readers, the first installment in what I hope will become a weekly feature here on the Playground: Great Moments in Modern Conservative Thought.

In college, one of my favorite classes was Conservative Political Thought. The professor I had was an absolute gem: a great lecturer, a fountain of knowledge, the kind of man that had strong opinions and an open mind. If only there were more politicians like him, the world would be a better place.

There are still great minds exploring conservative political theories even today. That, however, is not what I'll be showcasing in this feature. Rather, this feature will be devoted to quotes by assorted contemporary conservatives who clearly and persuasively articulate their viewpoints with passion, if not always with corroborating evidence.

Quotes will not be edited (I'm not going to waste my time on your inability to spell). However, if you are a potty mouth, I will reserve the right to amend your profanity-laced wisdom. And I will avoid editorializing, as tempting as it might be.

Of course, if you would like to share a great moment in modern conservative thought, please email me at playgroundpolitics AT gmail DOT com. I'll be happy to consider your submissions for inclusion in the next installment.

Enjoy.


From our Friends at Free Republic:

if you wnat homosexuals around children vote for Democrats
if you want homosexuals fired for being around children vote Republican.
Foley was protect by the democrat homosexuals.

I am so surprised at how absolutely brazen these prix are in the DBM/dems. They really think Republicans are in straights over this bogus, trumped up scandal!

The fact is the republicans FIRE homosexuals. Democrats HIRE homosexuals.

Isn't it true that the Donkey Party wants to lower the age of consent to 12? What's the big deal about sex with 16-year-olds, given the Donkey stance on it?

How many would vote their republican congressman out of office if they found out the representative was gay? I for one wouldn't. I'll take a flamingly gay fiscal conservative over a churchgoing family man who sqaunders our taxes. Should I REALLY care if the hand that is picking my pocket is straight or limp-wristed?

If the GOP had any guts, they would do the following:

On Monday, Hastert would call a press conference, and announce the following: As soon as Congress returns after the elections, a Bill will be submitted entitled the "Save Our Sons" Act. This Act, when passed into law, would make it illegal for Homosexuals to work with children. They would be barred from being Scout Masters, Teachers or Coaches, etc.

The Democrats will be put on the defensive. If they support the Act, they will alienate their Homo base. If they fight the Act, they will alienate the " Reagan Democrats."If they accuse the Republicans of being Homophobic, the Republicans can point out that the Democratic stance supports Pedophiles.

By initiating the Foley scandal, the Democrats have brought the Gay issue front and center. Gay marriage helped the Republicans at the Polls in 2004, it can help them again.


Great Moments in Local Conservative Thought:

Peter DiGaudio
These Democrats don’t give a flying f*** about kids or the pages. Not when they will ass rape them just to seize power. Like the bunch of f***ing NAMBLA enablers they are … along with all the rest of the perverted lifestyles they embrace.

Chris
Update to Jay and his readers coming over from f*** heads blog, first and for most let me say this F*** YOU ALL . Jay , Tim and Mike can all F*** OFF AND DIE I may never get tired of that phrase. When Moonbats like the three stooges link here that is the greeting I Will give you I really do hate you all. I have no wish to even try to be civil with people like the three stooges anymore.

You go hide under you desk Jay instead of trying to do something. Which even a f*** head such as yourself would be able to do if armed and properly trained. Even a sissy bitch such as yourself can be taught to shoot a gun safely, well maybe not you Jay.

Also as usual Jay has no concept of tactical situation. You keep trying to talk to the bad guys Jay let me know how that works for you. I hope another teacher is there and armed and shoots the f***er in the back. But not before you have your turn at “talking”

Now you dick heads coming over from Jays place have a really nice day(not really you can all f*** off too)

Wait hang on a second let me see if I can get you to wet your pants Jay “LOOK A GUN”

What a f***ing sissy bitch you are Jay.

Sunday Poll: What percentage of the vote will Dave Magnum get?

I was discussing this with a friend last night, and thought it'd be interesting to get an idea of what my readers thought.

What percentage of the vote will Dave Magnum get in his race against Tammy Baldwin?

For the record, Magnum put up 37 percent against Baldwin two years ago. Feel free to also insert your editorial thoughts about Magnum's candidacy and campaign (or Baldwin's, for that matter, though it's no small wonder that she even bothers to run a campaign).

"Two Mortgages" Van Hollen has the Joementum

"Two Mortgages" Van Hollen is touting the results of a recent WISC poll that shows him down five to Kathy Falk. In the poll, he trails Falk 45-40. Certainly a better showing than polls taken when hardly anyone knew who Van Hollen was. I'll give him that.

Here's his problem...


Van Hollen is basically bragging that he's polling the same as Mark Green, a guy who has yet to find a way to get that red line to move above the blue line. Doesn't everyone pretty much expect the AG race to mirror the governor's race to within a point or two?

The ground Van Hollen has "made up" was all running downhill. Let's see if he and Green can find a way to climb the steepest side of the mountain in the next month. Because by all accounts, Green hasn't been too successful just yet. I'm not saying he can't be successful, only looking at what data has been collected so far.

Oh look, I'm right on! Again!

The Hill: Longtime Republican was source of e-mails

Just hours earlier, I said this:

"And finally, let us not forget that pissed off Republican staff are sometimes a bigger problem than Democratic staff. Republicans shouldn't be so quick to assume that it was the Democrats who leaked this to the press."

You know, now I really do hope the Republicans get their full investigation of how these IM's got leaked to the press. It'll probably end up at the feet of some twenty-something staffer who was friends with a few pages, worked 80 hours a week for $25K in DC and had to watch some worthless CoS in the office pull down six or seven times what he was making and get free tickets to Wizards games from convicted lobbyists.

Who ever could have imagined that Republican staffers would willingly cause so much trouble for their clueless leadership? You should now expect members of House leadership to call a special caucus in which at least one wacko in the group demands that the person who outed Foley be fired for not being a team player.

Foleygate: One must repent to be forgiven of their sins

As anyone who works in politics knows, many politicians (certainly not all of them) are all too eager to blame their staff any time something bad happens. Late for a meeting? "I got bad directions from my staff." Constituent doesn't like a response they got? "My staff clearly misunderstood me." A lot of legislators don't do this. Unfortunately, a lot of them do. No need to name names; everyone who has ever worked in politics is nodding their head right now.

There's a beautiful sort of freedom that comes when you are no longer beholden to the system. I think that Kirk Fordham will discover that now that he is free from any kind of professional loyalty to the kinds of slimeballs who would cover for and otherwise blow off such destructive behavior from a colleague. Rather than see himself get tarred by legislators in the Pagegate scandal, Fordham did the downright honorable thing. He resigned his job as Chief of Staff to Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) and began to fight back.

Some political hacks become so wrapped up in the system, in the game, that they forget what it's like to actually have opinions of their own. They begin to think that they were put on God's earth to carry water for their boss. Anyone around politics knows the type of person I'm talking about. If you ask them what they think of a particular matter, they begin spouting out the team's talking points.

A guy like Fordham who resigns from a job that pays him $160K a year can hardly be perceived as someone with an agenda. Revenge, maybe, but Fordham also said good things about his former boss, Rep. Tom Reynolds, after resigning. So the revenge theory is hard to buy. And on top of that, the Playground has sources who have worked with Fordham and have said that he's a nice guy and about as far from being a D.C. ladder climber as they come.

So Fordham makes a statement that Hastert's office knew and - big surprise! - Scott Palmer, the guy still making $160K on Hastert's payroll, says he's full of crap. Hmmm... who should I believe? The guy who walked away from his six-figure salary or the guy desperately trying to save his?

That's one of the problems here for the Republicans. The people who don't have agendas all seem to be pointing in one general direction - that House leadership had a pretty good inkling of what Foley was up to all these years, and in their own craven and arrogant desires to preserve and expand upon their own authority, simply ignored what could've caused them a few days of bad press.

The other problem is that Republicans, because they are politicians, have simply forgotten the sheer power of accountability and forgiveness. Republican leadership, instead of just accepting responsibility for badly mishandling the Foley situation and apologizing to the American people, tries to obfuscate the issue and point fingers in all directions.

Imagine how differently things might look right now if Fat Denny simply came forward that first day and said this:

"We were informed a few years ago that there may have been some kind of inappropriate discussion between Rep. Foley and members of the page staff. We were not given many details at the time. We spoke to Rep. Foley and he assured us that nothing improper had occurred. In simply accepting his word, we failed to live up to our responsibilities as leaders of this body.

These were serious accusations and deserved a full investigation at that time. I apologize and accept full responsibility for not being more assertive in investigating any accusation of wrongdoing against Rep. Foley. I made a terrible error in judgment. But Foley's conduct should not reflect on our hundreds of members who do their jobs ethically and honestly. I offer my sincerest apologies to my caucus, my fellow legislators, and to my constituents.

While I would be honored to serve once again in the leadership of the next Congress, my fate is in the hands of others, and I will accept their judgment when the time comes to decide my future."

The biggest reason Hastert and company keep taking on so much water is that nobody in the Republican Party wants to admit wrongdoing. Admitting you screwed up will help get you out of this mess, guys. It won't get you in further.

If Republican leadership had just apologized up front and publicly vowed to accept whatever fate was handed to them by their constituents and colleagues, Democrats and the media would look like they were kicking the sinners while they're on their knees, asking for forgiveness. Instead, the media just looks like it's after the truth - which it has to do, since Republicans won't volunteer the truth.

So instead of getting a few days of bad press out of this, Republicans are going to get a month's worse of bad press, likely longer. While he might be safe for the moment, Denny Hastert's completely forgettable tenure as Speaker of the House is all but dead. John Boehner's attempts to distance himself in the "who knew what" game is a clear attempt to preserve whatever remaining chance he might have of becoming speaker or Minority Leader, depending on November's results. Tom Reynolds, like our very own goofy senator of the same name, now has to fight for his own re-election in New York. My bet is that GOP rank-and-file members come back in late November/early December for leadership elections and completely purge top-tier leadership.

Instead of just being accountable, Republicans are now trying to turn this into a process argument. They're bitching about who got the information to the media and what kind of agenda they have. And that, in turn, will simply prove to even more Americans that they just don't get it. America doesn't care about process arguments, guys. They care that you knew of a child-enticing perv in your midst and cared too much about your own political power to weed him out.

Whatever. Bottom line is, Republican leadership was informed years ago that Mark Foley had a thing for male pages, and they didn't do a damn thing about it other than questioning him and buying whatever bullshit he fed them. Anyone who shows judgment that poor shouldn't be trusted to lead the neighborhood parade, let alone the circus parade on Capitol Hill.

And finally, let us not forget that pissed off Republican staff are sometimes a bigger problem than Democratic staff. Republicans shouldn't be so quick to assume that it was the Democrats who leaked this to the press.

Rob Kreibich: Selling out Republican values for some cheap press

Author's note: Ten minutes ago, someone inside the Capitol with a legislative IP address complained that I was writing about Mark Foley too much. Well then, the readers have spoken. I tried to branch out a little bit and give those poor Republican leggies some time off. Apparently Republican staff don't like that. So here you go. Enjoy!


I mean, really, what else can you say about a legislator who peddles a story to the papers about how he called the Green Bay Packers to complain that ticket prices are too high?

“I just feel the Packers have an obligation to make games affordable to moderate- to low-income families,” Kreibich said.

Yeah, you know what, Rob? I really like those houses out in Middleton near Bishop's Bay. I sure as hell wish those were affordable to moderate- to low-income families too. Maybe I could live in one then. I'd also like a BMW, a projection television, and a live-in chef to prepare my meals. Can those items be on your new "anti-capitalist affordability agenda" too?

Apparently Rob's taken the time to speak to the moderate- to low-income families of his district and they're not clamoring about the cost of or lack of access to quality health care. They're not talking about taxes. They're not talking about creating good jobs.

Nope, they're talking about how we need price controls on tickets for Packer games.

And Republicans wonder why their base bitches and moans about their general idiocy? Hell, I'm not even a part of that base and I can smell this for the whorish media grab it is.

If anything, the secondary market for seats at home games are a sure sign that if anything, the Packers are exceedingly benevolent when it comes to their price structure. They obviously could charge a hell of a lot more for tickets. Who knows, maybe if they did that, the taxpayers of Brown County wouldn't have to suck up that tax increase that Republican legislators up there were all too happy to shill for a few years ago - guys like rabid tax-cutter John Gard, if my memory serves me correctly.

Wouldn't that be a more Republican way to go, Rob? "Kreibich pushes Packers to charge market value for tickets; encourages early sunset of Packers sales tax"?

Nope. Instead we get "Kreibich bitches and whines for press like a little sissy."

Well golly, that's convenient

So now I'm supposed to believe that Mark Foley is not only a pedophile, but also an alcoholic.

Whatever. Count me in the group that firmly believes this is just an excuse for GOP leadership to put Foley somewhere that reporters won't be able to hound him for interviews and where he can't act on any impulse to, oh, call up Barbara Walters or Oprah and tell all, Jim McGreevey style.

Without regurgitating it here, it'd also be worth your time to check out what The Note has to say about the whole matter, including quotes from anonymous sources, the only ones that'll say anything worthwhile about the affair.