Today's word is: hyperbole

Sayeth Owen regarding leggie sick leave:

The sick pay scam is costing the taxpayers millions of dollars for no other reason other than to feather the nests of greedy politicians. Unless they can bring themselves to give up this expensive perk, they will forever lack the moral authority to ask the rest of us to “sacrifice” more of are (sic) hard-earned money for the “common good” by paying more in taxes.

"Forever lack the moral authority?" Please. It's a small discussion about a benefit of employment. It's not the civil rights movement. And I'd be interested to see a memo from LAB/LFB before allowing people to start using the phrase "millions of dollars" as some breezy rhetorical device. Just because Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson has banked half a million in sick leave doesn't mean she's going to come anywhere close to spending all of it. She'd probably have to live another three epochs to do that.

Are there problems with sick leave accrual? Sure. But before we all start gesticulating wildly and feigning outrage, maybe we should just approach the matter rationally? It's not a hard problem to solve.

Whether it's serving as a professor or as a constitutional officer, this sick leave "scandal" deals with individuals in jobs whose workloads are, for the most part, extremely flexible. People in these positions can rearrange their work schedules almost at will. If a professor is sick on Wednesday, he can have his TA cover his lecture and move his two appointments that afternoon to later in the week. There's little to no functional difference between a "sick day" and a "day off."

Accordingly, we must consider whether or not we attach value to physical presence when determining the benefit. If a professor has a day when he is not lecturing, does it matter if he's doing his research at work or in his home office?

A professor is a full-time employee just like the department secretary, who as a condition of employment does actually have to be at work to answer phones and handle requests. In one case physical presence is clearly necessary. In the other, it's a lot less clear. And truthfully, who among us wouldn't jump at the chance to work from home once in awhile if we could?

Do legislators accrue too much sick leave? Given the lack of accountability for how they spend their time, the answer might well be yes. For the sake of argument, let's assume that it is. Perhaps, then, accrual should be limited to those times when there is oversight of their activity?

For instance, legislators could be allowed to accrue sick leave only for each day they are required to be at work in Madison. In other words, credit them with the same amount of daily sick leave that other state employees get, but only on days when they are required to be in Madison for committee hearings or floor session. Just by looking at a biennial calendar, that should lop off about two-thirds of their accrual potential right there.

Don't like that idea? Well, perhaps instead we could allocate sick leave just like we allocate per diem, including a half-credit award for Dane County leggies, who tend to hang around work more frequently just as a matter of proximity.

As Owen correctly notes in his post, an elected official isn't required to do much of anything as a condition of their job. So if they're back in the district, why give them sick leave? They could be going to meetings all day or sitting on the couch playing Xbox and nobody would be the wiser. And barring any oversight, we shouldn't presume that they're being productive.

Same goes for other constitutional officers. If you're at work, I have no problems giving you the benefit. If you're going on some ridiculous junket to New Orleans to soak the taxpayers one last time before you leave office, then you don't accrue the benefit for those days.

Reporting isn't difficult. Heck, legislators already turn in per diem reports each month. It's a calendar with X's for each day the legislator was present at the Capitol. Seems to me like that could be turned into the "per diem and sick leave accrual report" by changing about one line on a Word document.

However, one cannot address this topic without noting that many of the screamers on this issue have their priorities backwards. A lot of this hue and cry over sick leave conversion is coming from people who likely are just bitter or angry that their own employer doesn't take care of them as well as the state would.

So instead of engaging in a dialogue about how their employers can do better to provide adequate and affordable health care, they simply rag endlessly on people who actually do have good health plans. Instead of fixing the problem, they're content to try and make everyone suffer.

Our time would be spent more constructively by finding ways to help everyone have great health insurance rather than figuring out ways to take it from those who do.

A short read on Iran and terrorism

Andrew McCarthy, a senior fellow the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, has an excellent and brief read up over at National Review regarding U.S. policy in the Middle East. Specifically, how we shouldn't deal with those who would do us harm.

Says McCarthy...

Islamic countries, moreover, are not rejecting Western democracy because they haven’t experienced it. They reject it on principle. For them, the president’s euphonious rhetoric about democratic empowerment is offensive. They believe, sincerely, that authority to rule comes not from the people but from Allah...

These people are not morons. They adhere to a highly developed belief system that is centuries old, wildly successful, and for which many are willing to die. They haven’t refused to democratize because the Federalist Papers are not yet out in Arabic. They decline because their leaders have freely chosen to decline. (read the rest here)

This is exactly why the Bush administration is in such a sticky spot in the Middle East. It acts like peddling democracy in the Middle East is something akin to selling Girl Scout Cookies. Like Iraq, Iran, and all the others are going to buy three boxes of Thin Mints because it's for a good cause. Never mind that they've detested Thin Mints for centuries.

So Bush can keep trying to play house in Iraq, setting them up with puppet governments that have no credible authority without a level of military support than most Americans don't care to give them. We're not going to conquer the Arab world, we're not going to democratize it in a generation, and we're not going to increase our security by being the handmaidens of terrorist nations. If Iran and Syria are looking for countries to be their bitch, there are a dozen nations in Europe dressed up like hookers and waiting at their door already. We don't need to join them.

People in Arab nations know all about democracy. If they celebrated Christmas, democracy would be their fruitcake. They'd take it, put it in the closet, and regift it next year. When a critical mass of them shows some interest in the concept, maybe we should talk about how we can help.

In the meantime, our goal should be to do everything within reason to contain the threat that militant Islam poses to the rest of the world. Nothing less.

But nothing more.

But wait... it gets even better.

Here's the UW-L CR Chairman calling a "liberal University official" at 2 in the morning trying to bother him about some matter or another. It's like this guy is proud of his foolishness or something.

Here's the text to the article that is displayed at the beginning of the clip.

Perhaps UW-L needs to offer a few classes in conflict resolution.

Could this turn into a Christmas gift for some lucky Republican legislator?

Not that this comes as a surprise to anyone, but today Governor Doyle officially acknowledged the resignation of Insurance Commissioner Jorge Gomez. Gomez's pending departure was widely known, as Doyle prepares to make changes in his cabinet for his second term as governor.

What is more interesting is that the name of one Republican legislator has been strongly mentioned as a possible replacement for Gomez. This could be the first opportunity for Doyle to make some trouble. We should know in the next few weeks whether he is able to use this well-paid vacancy to leverage a potential political advantage in one of Wisconsin's swing districts.

UW-L CR Chairman makes ass of self, then posts it to YouTube

This pretty much speaks for itself. If this is the future of the Republican Party, it's probably safe for the Democrats to start making long-term plans.

Second verse? Same as the first.

Just last week, conservatives across the blogosphere were heralding the election of Scott Fitzgerald to lead the Senate Republicans. Fitzgerald would provide a badly needed dose of real conservatism to Senate leadership.

Well, today Sen. Fitz had an opportunity to showcase the kind of conservative stamp he hoped to put on affairs by announcing his two appointments to the Joint Finance Committee.

Mary Lazich? Nope.

Ted Kanavas? Nope.

Budget hawks like Mike Ellis or Rob Cowles? Nope.

Luther Olsen and Alberta Darling.

Yeah, you read that right.

Now, I don't have a problem with either Olsen or Darling. But when you're supposed to be Mr. Bad Ass Conservative, why are you appointing Stan Johnson's favorite Republican and Mrs. Howell to the Joint Finance Committee?

Not one day earlier, DOA tapped everyone on the shoulder and reminded us that we're starting the '07-'09 budget a billion-six down. And Fitz's response is to put two of the biggest spenders in town on Finance.

If there are any conservatives who'd like to explain or justify this decision, please feel free to leave a comment. Because really, some of us are wondering how exactly this is different than anything Dale Schultz would've done.

More simple solutions for saving scratch: One and two dollar coins

Owen is dead on in his take regarding the recent announcement of new commemorative $1 coins. Well, he's partly right. Watching the U.S. Mint parade these absurd commemorative dollars out is embarrassingly stupid.

What the federal government needs to do is what every other country that has made a switch has done. Do it clean. Give retailers time to prepare. And for heaven's sake, yank the paper currency off the market.

Yes America, there are better uses for your tax dollars than printing dollar bills.

A dollar bill wears out in about 18 months, and at a production cost of approximately four cents per bill, it's not exactly a cheap replacement. Over the course of 10 years, it costs us 27 cents to keep a dollar bill circulating. Think about that. A full quarter of its value is blown in production and reproduction.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland released a paper in 2004 that indicated an annual savings of $450-500 million by switching to one dollar coins. Pardon the pun, but in the bigger picture, that's not small change. On the high end, not adjusting for inflation, that's $5 billion every ten years.

Canada switched to the dollar coin in 1987 and the two-dollar coin in 1996. Back then, Canadians grumbled a little (politely, of course!). Today, nobody even notices or cares. Okay, maybe they notice when they visit the U.S. and spend thirty seconds trying to get the vending machine to accept that disgusting, crumpled up dollar bill they got earlier from the clerk at Wal-Mart.

Also interesting is the following note from the Congressional Budget Office in a 1997 report that analyzed ways to reduce the deficit. It suggests that there's also a significant savings on debt servicing:

... replacing one-dollar notes with coins would reduce the cost of financing the federal deficit, which would lead to long-run savings far greater than the direct savings to the government through 2002. Such long-run savings would be generated only if the public was willing to hold more than a single dollar coin for each one-dollar note. In fact, the experience of other countries strongly suggests that the public would hold a larger amount of non-interest-bearing coin and currency after the conversion is complete. For example, the Federal Reserve and the General Accounting Office estimate that the public would hold $9 billion in one-dollar coins and $1.5 billion in additional notes for the $6 billion in one-dollar bills that is currently held. That would permit the government to finance $4.5 billion of federal debt by issuing non-interest-bearing coins and currency instead of interest-bearing Treasury securities.

With interest rates at 6 percent, the government would save $270 million in interest per year. Because interest costs would be reduced in the first year, borrowing from the public would be lower in all subsequent years, resulting in additional savings. However, the effects on federal borrowing are not included in the estimate for any option because they constitute an indirect or second-order budgetary impact.

Rallying behind one and two-dollar coins is a simple way to drastically reduce our cost of currency production. It's an easy concept that any fiscal conservative should be encouraging their Representatives and Senators to take seriously. The more simple things we can do to save tax dollars, the easier the difficult decisions become.

The only thing the dollar bill symbolizes today is that Americans are stupid when it comes to saving money while making their money. It's time for... um... change.

Wanna pay for a tax cut? Start here.

Philip Trostel pointed out the obvious a few days in the WSJ: Wisconsin's corrections spending is out of control.

According to Trostel:

Combined, Census Bureau and Justice Department data, reveal that in fiscal years 2000-04, the Wisconsin state government spent $48,773 annually per inmate (adjusted for inflation).

No one doubts that prisons are expensive to operate, but it is not clear why this needed to be 40 percent above the national average and 44 percent higher than the state's per capita income. If Wisconsin had spent the same as the national average, the state would have saved $301 million annually.

And conservative legisalators want to complain about waste, fraud, and abuse in the UW System? Maybe they should spend just half that energy trying to figure out what in the hell is going on over at the Department of Corrections. Our corrections budget has nearly quadrupled in the last 15 years.

Of course, part of the reason Republicans are unwilling to be tough on DOC is that they were largely responsible for corrections costs going through the roof in the '90s. The problem escalated quickly when King Tommy and his pals in the Legislature started seeing prisons as economic development tools for rural communities where no business in its right mind would ever locate. So we built in Boscobel and New Lisbon, and purchased a private facility in Stanley for far more than we ever should have paid for it.

How bad was the Stanley boondoggle? Check out the following summary from the Legislative Reference Bureau:

In August 1998, Dominion Venture Group, LLC, an Oklahoma company, began construction of a 1,500-bed medium-security prison at Stanley without express legal authorization from the State of Wisconsin. At the request of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala, Attorney General James E. Doyle issued an opinion (OAG 2-99), dated May 28, 1999, stating that, while a private company could build a private prison, it could not operate the facility without statutory authorization that do so. According to the opinion, Dominion could not house either Wisconsin inmates or prisoners from out-of-state because state law as it then existed gave the private company no power to do so. Without any formal directive from the State of Wisconsin, the company indicated later in 1999 that the “goal of the project is to build a modern prison. . . that will be operated by the [state] to house Wisconsin inmates.”

In other words, there was only one potential buyer for a prison in Stanley: the State of Wisconsin. Our state government held all of the cards. And how did we leverage that power? That's right, in 2001, the State of Wisconsin purchased the facility for $79.9 million. Man, what a steal. A big shout-out to departing senator Dave Zien for leading the charge to hang that albatross around our neck.

Conservatives sometimes complain that K-12 schools are spending upwards of $10K a year to educate students. But strangely, I never hear them complaining about the fact that we spend nearly five times that to incarcerate prisoners. Perhaps they would be wise to start.

I've long held that any true conservative would not use incarceration as a first resort, but as a last resort for punishing crime. Locking someone up is expensive, and personally, I believe that "tough on crime" Republicans are too quick to use prison as a cheap method to get votes.

But Trostel isn't even arguing to lock fewer people up. He's only arguing that we investigate why our spending per prisoner is so much higher than other states.

$301 million in annual savings just by spending the national average. That's $602 million in a biennium.

Our 5% sales tax generates approximately $4 billion annually. So if we reduced corrections spending to the national average, we could also afford to reduce our sales tax rate to 4.7%, and that would still leave us with an additional $60 million each year kicking around. We could use that to pay down the state's debt, or to shore up MA.

Or here's another idea. Use the funds as an earmark to encourage the UW System to create additional seats at UW campuses for in-state students. After all, Wisconsin's graduating high school classes keep getting bigger and we aren't paying for any more slots at UW campuses to accommodate them. We also know that students with college degrees make more money, which increases tax revenue, are less likely to go to jail and consume other public services. At a cost of $11K annually per student, phasing in the $60M over four years and indexing it for inflation eventually buys you 1,360 more slots for each incoming class at UW schools. That's 1,360 students each year who are either opting to attend school out of state (think they come back?) or just not go to a four-year school at all.

Tax cuts. Paying down debt. Shoring up existing programs. Investing in the economic health of our state. Four things that any conservative should believe in more than paying for bloat at DOC.

Will Mike Huebsch and Scott Fitzgerald have the nerve to demand fiscal accountability at DOC where their predecessors have not? For the sake of Wisconsin, let's hope so.

Gotta love Fox.

From the network that continually scrapes the bottom of the barrel looking for that lowest common denominator of entertainment, we now get a heaping glass of O.J. to wash down the Thanksgiving leftovers.

Fox is reportedly planning to air a two-part interview with O.J. Simpson the week after Thanksgiving that will discuss how he would have killed his ex-wife Nicole and her acquaintance Ron Goldman. You know, had he actually done it. Which clearly he did not. Because he was acquitted. And juries are always right - that's why we never have to worry about the death penalty. Juries never screw up. Not even with DNA evidence. Nope. Nosiree.

Add one more to the list.

Congratulations and best of luck to Mike Huebsch on his election as Speaker. He'll need lots of luck wrangling with his razor-thin majority.

And speaking of razor-thin majority, please add Dean Kaufert to my earlier list of potential buy-out candidates for the Doyle administration. Leggies are paranoid creatures enough without people fanning the flames, so I didn't want to connect the dots before today's caucus. But let's think about this situation honestly.

If you're the co-chair of the Joint Finance Committee, why do you run for Speaker against a prohibitive favorite? Easy. That prohibitive favorite probably told you that he was going to strip you of your chairmanship and offer it to someone else. Here's my wild guess as to who someone else might be: click here!

The Democrats were all but dead in Northeast Wisconsin four years ago. Team Jensen had whittled them down to Dave Hansen, Bob Ziegelbauer, and Roger Breske - and Breske and Ziggy are practically Republicans anyway. Now, four years later, they've added Gordon Hintz, Tom Nelson, Jim Soletski, and let's not forget Steve Kagen. Clearly, now would be a great time to make another run at the 55th. If I'm the Dems, I'd just run Mark Westphal again and dare the GOP to pick the right horse to win.

What does Kaufert get for sticking around the Assembly? Not much. Huebsch making Kaufert co-chair of Finance after his run for Speaker would certainly be conciliatory, but would tick off a portion of the Republican base that doesn't believe Kaufert is conservative enough. So Kaufert is probably destined for the back of the room, and unless he has designs on running for minority leader in two years, his legislative career has probably reached its zenith. Kaufert's a loyal guy, and if his staff can be taken care of, there's not much reason for him to stick around.

The coming weeks will be interesting, indeed.

Dear Lady Caroline...

I have a feeling if you were still around that you'd have all sorts of good stuff to share. We miss you out here.

To commemorate your memorable contributions to the blogosphere, I offer my readers a fine selection of your vintage posts from Glenarvon:

• Lady Caroline passes notes at the Jensen trial.

• Lady Caroline takes on Julie Lassa.

• Lady Caroline reminds us that most legislators are total hypocrites when it comes to ethics.

• Lady Caroline calls out mommy legislators who treat their staff as state-funded daycare.

• Lady Caroline calls out a certain senator who thinks guns, snowmobiles, and booze are a great combination.

I'd like fries and a Coke with that.

Too good to be lost in the comments of a previous post:

Being the majority leader means being able to say - "you are wrong, but I will do it anyway." That was Mike Huebsch with John Gard.

Foti was probably the best majority leader the capitol ever had. Combine that with the best speaker (Jensen) and you had a team.

Now you have what you have. The question is: do you make chicken sh!# with it or chicken salad?

Hint: Huebsch and a piece of bread will get you a meal.

So is that like #3 at McDonald's? The Mike Huebsch value meal?

Grover Norquist is an idiot.

From the Financial Times:

Although some glitz has come off Mr Rove, Republicans have been more eager to blame botched campaigns and individual ethics scandals. “Bob Sherwood’s seat [in Pennsylvania] would have been overwhelmingly ours, if his mistress hadn’t whined about being throttled,” said Mr Norquist. Any lessons from the campaign? “Yes. The lesson should be, don’t throttle mistresses.”

Don't throttle mistresses. Nice. Good to see Grover Norquist in classic jackass form, a form he never really leaves. It's a real shame that women whine when men beat them, you know. They should apparently just patch up their wounds, return to the kitchen, and bake the cookies.

What an asshole.

And then there were four...

And as long as we're trolling WaPo, D.C. consultant Ed Rogers has a great column that breaks down the 2008 GOP presidential primary. Rogers articulates a basic point very well:

The GOP nominating process, perhaps now more than ever, favors front-runners and candidates with a national fundraising base. With the first voting just 14 months away, a contender will probably need at least $60 million before the balloting even starts.

Rogers then asserts that, barring an enormous surprise, the GOP only has four candidates who can really do that: Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, and Newt Gingrich. Romney's got the Mormon thing, Giuliani has the mistress and the pro-choice thing, and Gingrich has the messy divorce and most everyone hates him thing. There'd be a fifth horse in the race, a conservative horse, except George Allen went all Barbaro on election night.

Given the field and the fact that McCain has been plucking key staffers from the Bush campaign to lay the ground game in states like South Carolina, McCain may actually be the prohibitive favorite at this point. Who would've thought?

Also, now I see why so many bloggers just link to articles. It requires practically no thought.

I Am Macaca

Great column from Sunday's WaPo by S.R. Sidarth, the man who would be Macaca. Worth reading, especially for the perspective he offers on some of the Allen supporters. Gives a guy hope that once you get all the fire-breathing idiots on both sides out of the way, Americans are still a largely reasonable and friendly group of souls.

A Choice Worse Than Kaufert or Huebsch

I'm not a huge fan of the Huebsch for Speaker movement, and truthfully, there are honest criticisms that can be laid at the feet of Dean Kaufert as well. Neither is perfect, and we probably can't expect a perfect candidate anyway. However, I'll take Huebsch or Kaufert before I'd ever take Charlie Sykes as speaker. Er, Leah Vukmir. Sorry. Their talking points are so similar I get them confused.

According to Mark Rahmlow today on WisPolitics:

Republicans will not take back the state Senate or increase their Assembly majority through moderation. They will need to have leaders that stand for bold ideas and put into action a plan that will show voters the difference between the two parties. Vukmir was one of three Republicans that truly supported Rep. Frank Lasee's (R- Bellevue) Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Vukmir would provide effective leadership and better articulate the conservative agenda.

In the last session, Vukmir introduced legislation strengthening parental notification laws for minors seeking abortion, authored a bill to cap attorney fees in medical malpractice cases, cracked down on sexual predators, worked to expand charter and choice, led on the voter identification bill, and proposed a cancer drug repository program. Vukmir has to be choice of the conservative movement.

Conservatives can function in leadership, and function well. The Senate Republicans did well to choose Scott Fitzgerald as their incoming Minority Leader. Fitzgerald is a reliable conservative and will help to keep the Democrats on their toes. The job of a minority leader isn't to build coalitions and get things passed. His job is to be the conscientious objector, the clear voice of the opposition. Sen. Fitzgerald will be great at that. But that's not what you need when you're running the show.

Being in the minority is far different than being in the majority. Dale Schultz was the right guy to lead that caucus when they were in the majority. He's a moderate who can build consensus. But the Senate Republicans are on the outside looking in now, and they're probably better off with a guy like Fitzgerald who doesn't have to govern, but has to keep the Democrats honest.

However, to suggest that this change means the Senate Republicans are moving to the right is a joke. To assert that Senators move anywhere is ridiculous. Each of them is his or her own island over there. They look in the mirror in the morning and see a governor. What the Senate GOP has been liberated to do is elect people to leadership who will clearly articulate a conservative message.

The Assembly, however, is still responsible for governing. And with that, I'd like to introduce Mark to the 52-seat majority. Depending on Doyle's schenanigans, it could end a 50 or 51-seat majority. 52-seat majorities have to be moderate by design if they hope to accomplish anything. You know, results? The thing that voters elect politicians to get. Electing a Charlie Sykes puppet as Speaker would only increase enmity and discord in the caucus.

That's why Vukmir would be such a train wreck. It'd be like all those voters back in 1960 who wondered whether John F. Kennedy could be the president and a practicing Catholic. People would constantly question whether Vukmir was being loyal to her caucus or just serving as a foot soldier for the talking heads of Milwaukee squawk radio.

Governing with a 52-seat majority is all about one word: compromise. There's just no room for absolutism when you need virtually everyone on board to get anything accomplished. The easy alternative on many low-profile issues will be to get a handful of Democrats on board. But on other issues, Republicans will have to find a way to get 95% of their caucus to support a bill. Without a lot of moderation or a lot of horse trading, that won't happen.

Whether the Assembly picks Mike Huebsch or Dean Kaufert, their primary functions in the next two years will be the same: goalkeeper and consensus builder. Neither can get a hard-line, right-wing budget passed. And judging by the comments both have made publicly, both understand that. The next two years is about shunting all the divisive social stuff (they don't have the votes to pass it anyway) and getting back to brass tacks; namely, convincing voters once again that Republicans are indeed the party of limited government. That's the winning message for Republicans. It's not goofy conscience clause bills, it's not being the water boy for PLW.

It's birthday week on the Playground, and I'll try to give a gift to Assembly Republicans because deep down, I still love them even though they've behaved terribly as of late. Want a winning message? Cut taxes in a way that everyone benefits. Cut the sales tax by a tenth or a quarter of a point. Or increase the standard deduction on state income taxes. Start with that - a tax cut you can sell to everyone. Then find a way to streamline other programs to fit your anticipated revenue stream.

The reason the GOP never gets credit for its tax cuts is because they're all vanity cuts these days, targeted at specific groups that pony up the cash to get them. Heck, if the GOP has to roll back a few targeted cuts to pay for a broader reduction, do it. Give voters a reason to believe you aren't afraid to be bold. You win zero votes from the average voter by exempting ATMs or restaurant equipment from property taxes. None.

Show up at the budget table this summer with a big idea and mean business about it. If the GOP shows up with a sales tax cut or an income tax cut that is paid for responsibly, Doyle and the Democrats will have no choice but to swallow it - just like with the repeal of gas tax indexing. And there'd be no better way to protect those remaining Republican incumbents than by letting them go home to their voters and say "Republicans cut your taxes."

Deal Or No Deal?

Not that it should come as a surprise to anyone - this was a preferred strategy of Tommy Thompson, after all - but I've been hearing rumblings that the Doyle administration may be playing ball with as many as three legislative Republicans, offering them better paying jobs in the administration. This, of course, would obligate them to resign their positions in the Legislature, opening the door for special elections in the spring.

I'm not in a position to name names, but think about this logically for a moment. Take a guy like Gene Hahn, for example. It's almost certain that this would be Hahn's last term in the Assembly, considering that it reportedly took a lot of cajoling and arm-twisting from John Gard just to get him to run this fall. If Doyle offered you a $70K a year job in an agency, why wouldn't you take it? It's $25K a year more than you make in the Legislature (not counting per diem and mileage). Your WRS pension is based on your length of service and the average of your three highest annual wages, so a stint in the administration provides a nice retirement bump too.

Senate Republicans are resigned to doing nothing but bitch for at least the next two years - probably longer, considering Sheila Harsdorf, Dan Kapanke, and Alberta Darling are all but certainly facing difficult reelection battles in two years. The Assembly Republican majority is barely existent and guaranteed to be almost totally dysfunctional. What's the incentive to stick around?

Meanwhile, Democrats are on a roll and would likely face decent odds in all of the following seats. Consider them all possibilities for offers from the Doyle gravy train. Will Doyle be successful in his efforts? We'll know in the coming weeks.

Gene Hahn: Nearing retirement anyway. Little incentive to stick around.

Brett Davis: Won by fewer than 250 votes in a district that the Democrats could almost certainly pick up if the seat were open. With Pettis gone, is now the wearer of the Rick Skindrud Memorial Bullseye as the lowest of the low hanging fruit on the tree.

Mary Williams: Won by fewer than 225 votes. Democrats would be extremely competitive in a special.

Karl Van Roy: Like Hahn, widely rumored to be considering retirement in 2008. Good friend Judy Krawczyk sent packing. Historically, a conservative Democrat would almost certainly have an edge in a special.

Lee Nerison: Won by 2 points in a district that keeps leaning further to the Democrats. In for an even tougher race in 2008. Might see the writing on the wall.

Dan Kapanke: For someone who's a doer, may find life in the minority to be less than fulfilling. Senate Republicans aren't likely to be leaving the minority before 2010. Alternatively, Kapanke could pull a Mark Meyer and simply opt to not run for reelection in 2008 - another possibility being whispered about.

Dale Schultz: As a moderate and a coalition builder, Senate Republicans are ill-equipped to use his skills in the minority. Democrats now control two of the three Assembly seats in his district, and Democrats have dominated in statewide races as of late. After 24 years in the Legislature, could be ready for a new challenge.

Yeah, maybe this is why Huebsch shouldn't be Speaker.

I'll have my own thoughts on this shortly, but in the meantime, Josh Schroeder hits the nail on the head as to why Mike Huebsch would be a terrible choice for Speaker.

Bloggiversary Gift List: Item #1

13 office cubicles, just $2600. But they have to be THESE cubicles, which can be purchased off of Craig's List.







But before delivering them, please, I beg you - clean all the santorum off first.

Happy Birthday Bill!

The Playground offers its warmest birthday wishes to Bill Cosh today. That thing I said in my last post about staff who are coffee clutchers? Not Bill. He's a smart guy and a hard worker and more or less the definition of team player. The Assembly Republicans would have 70 seats if they could clone Bill, and I'm pretty sure all the Democrats reading this would agree with me. It's to their own good fortune that unlike Santa or the Easter Bunny, he can only be in one place at a time.

Unfortunately, Steve Kestell keeps standing in the way of that cloning thing. Perhaps after seeing Tuesday's results, he might consider making an exception for the team.

And speaking of birthdays, the Playground turns 1 tomorrow! Where's my cake!?!? We'll be celebrating all of next week! How convenient that it's timed out perfectly with Assembly leadership elections. We've got dirt, we've got funny holiday photos, we've got more great examples of conservative thought. We might even have to speculate about why a certain blogger keeps talking up Mike Huebsch. Great things coming up!

Enjoy the weekend, everyone.

Election thoughts

I'll apologize for the delay in getting my election thoughts up, but only a little. Better to take a few days to digest and ponder the big questions before tossing out comments.

What did we learn on Tuesday night? Quite a few things. I'll touch on a few.

Tommy Thompson and Scott Jensen made it look easy. Mike Huebsch and John Gard thought it was easy. Guess what? It's not easy. Tommy was the charismatic leader and Jensen was the brilliant strategical mind pulling the strings behind the scenes. Even in bad years for Republicans (1992, 1996, 1998), Tommy and Scooter managed to deliver. Last night, Wisconsin Republicans found out the hard way that being that successful wasn't a fluke. It also wasn't a God-given right.

Legislative Republicans have totally orphaned the broad-themed, 60% issues that Jensen and Thompson leveraged so well. What the GOP was left with was a pastiche of smaller issues that appealed strongly to certain parts of the base but also badly marginalized parts of the electorate. And even worse, on issues like TABOR, they not only ticked off moderates, but failed to deliver to those they were pandering to.

Sure, Legislative Democrats don't have much of an agenda lined up, but guess what? That's not the job of the minority party. Their job is to convince people that they'd be a better option - or to let Republicans convince voters through their actions that they are the worse option. Republicans seem to have chosen the latter, to great success.

There were certainly national trends that favored the Democrats, but like I just noted, there have been many instances in the last 15 years when Republicans at the state level managed to be successful in down years. If Legislative Republicans just shrug their shoulders and blame this on Iraq and nationwide disdain for Republicans, they're missing the point. Heck, Jensen managed to pick up seats in 1998, a year when Republicans were being spanked for the stupidest impeachment proceedings ever.

Legislative Republicans gave voters no reason to elect them. The Republican Senate majority was just flat out dysfunctional, so there's no point in discussing their lack of cohesiveness. The leadership of John Gard and Mike Huebsch, however, has led to the sounding of the death knell on congruent policy platforms within the Assembly. Republicans don't have a serious comprehensive agenda on health care reform or K-12 finance. They haven't had a full jobs agenda in quite some time. The last serious tax cut Republicans pushed was in the 20th Century, not the 21st.

Team Jensen always had an agenda. Hell, Team Jensen usually had the entire agenda scripted, complete with theme weeks, which were designed to generate easy earned media for candidates. Team Huebsch/Gard never did that, and that's the job of the majority party. To have a plan. To take action. To get things accomplished. Instead, Gard was busy running for Congress, and Huebsch was using his political tin ear to tell Steve Freese and Gabe Loeffelholz and Rob Kreibich that they didn't have anything to worry about.

Republicans need to develop the guts to stop bending over for Pro-Life Wisconsin and Wisconsin Right to Life. Banning birth control isn't going to lead the GOP back into power. Letting the only pharmacist in a rural community decide to not stock certain drugs isn't a winning issue. Going after the family planning waiver isn't going to run it up at the polls. Couple that with a candidate for governor who opposes rape and incest exceptions for abortion and you've officially got a GOP agenda that creeps most women out. I've teased Carrie Lynch about all her talk regarding reproductive rights, but she's got a point. If Republicans keep this up, they're going to hemorrhage female voters from here to eternity. Nobody's asking the GOP to be rabidly pro-choice. But you can't tilt that far and that loudly and not expect voters to cringe.

The tent, it is a changin'. As of late, Republicans have adopted a small tent approach. It's densely packed, though, and designed to generate turnout among a few small core constituencies. Republicans have primarily pandered to social conservatives, pushing issues like concealed carry, conscience clause, photo ID, flag burning, gay marriage. Some even want to let 8-year-old kids walk around in the woods with guns. But they're focused on really turning out those voters that care about these issues.

Their other approach - their old approach - is the big tent approach that was the historical basis for the majority. They talked about 60% issues. Tax reform. Tort reform. Welfare reform. Some token patriotism like reciting the pledge of allegiance in schools. Go read the Contract with America or Jensen's campaign plans in 1992 and 1994 and tell me how many issues evangelicals got in there. That isn't to say that the importance of evangelicals can't be acknowledged. Surely the Republican Party is unlikely to abandon its generally pro-life position. But when they push social issues to the front of the line, they lose the big tent atmosphere, and moderates and independents begin to feel uncomfortable hanging out at their place.

The Democrats were leaner, meaner, hungrier, and more competent than their GOP colleagues. With the abolition of the caucuses (and some of the highest paying jobs in the Capitol), most veteran GOP staff have little reason to expend the extra effort of taking leave and staffing a campaign. Assembly work rules, for example, theoretically prevent workplace retribution for failing to participate in campaign activities. Assembly leadership hasn't been especially generous in financially rewarding those who have been most active in "helping the team" during campaign season. Add together and mix. What do you get? Many knowledgeable GOP veterans who could lead saw no reason to do anything other than stuff envelopes and make calls for candidates in the Dane County area.

Assembly GOP leaders seem to have lost sight of the fact that going out and working a race requires a lot more work and a lot more personal expense than enjoying a quiet September and October in the confines of one's legislative office. So with few exceptions, the GOP sent out a campaign team this season that looked less like World Series winners and more like the Bad News Bears. At the worst possible time, the GOP was left with a campaign staff that had remarkably little experience compared to years past. The GOP thought they could just run everything from Madison. Nope.

Republicans can fix their problems. This isn't a full blown crisis for Republicans. The Jensen playbook is pretty timeless for the GOP. Recruit good candidates. Test your message. Tailor your campaigns. Elect a competent, pragmatic leadership that fosters consensus. Build cohesive agendas with broad support. Carefully screen staff selections and stop tolerating the dead wood and coffee clutchers who don't contribute. Reward staff and legislators for their hard work. If someone wants to dust a copy of that playbook off, I think Joe Wineke has a copy.

Assembly Republicans can get back to 54 in 2008. It took them a decade to get from 52 to 60. Nobody should expect them to get it all back in one cycle. But they can turn the corner and move forward.

Whether they will is yet to be seen.

You got served.

I'll have more detailed thoughts on the rampant statewide success of the Southeast Wisconsin GOP agenda after I get some sleep.

To the Dems, congratulations. You finally brought it. Hope you enjoyed the evening. It was well earned.

To the Republicans who thought they could push gay marriage and fear mongering on national security to electoral success, the following video sums it up.

Oh yeah, and Owen? Stop whining. You think voters aren't sincere about clean government and ethics? Well, they just dumped the incumbent party in a dozen seats in the Legislature. They seem pretty damn sincere to me.

Playground Predictions. Start Cooking the Crow!

You know, I read some of these predictions from liberal and conservative bloggers, and it reminds of that old skit from Saturday Night Live, Bill Swerski's Superfans. You remember, the one with Chris Farley and Mike Myers and George Wendt. They'd sit around and drink beer and talk about how Da Bears would be beating Da Eagles this week 246-14, and how Mike Ditka alone could score 112 points against them. The only thing that might give Mike Ditka a hard time is Hurricane Ditka.

Take for instance, one conservative blogger's prediction of a six point Mark Green victory. Um... Green's barely gotten his head above water in ANY poll in the last 18 months. And now we get a six point homer pick.

Learn to be objective, folks. I know it's hard, because you all want your guys to win. But really. Objectivity is the one skill that people most often need and most often are sorely lacking.

And on that note, I too will line up to potentially eat crow on Wednesday.

Governor - The primary purpose of the Greater Wisconsin Committee is to get Jim Doyle re-elected. The fact that GWC started dropping money on local races last week is a pretty good sign that Team Doyle and Friends like the internal numbers they're seeing, and are comfortable enough to allow resources to be diverted elsewhere.

Plus, Green has been barely clinging inside of the margin of error in nearly every poll taken. In the last 26 polls listed by Pollster, Doyle has racked up a 25-0-1 record. While it's fun to hear folks talk about what they're feeling out there in the grassroots, I'll take the science of political polling any day - especially when 98% of the polls are saying the same thing. Doyle wins this one going away and the race may even be called by 10:30, making for a good night's sleep for everyone involved. Doyle by 5.

Attorney General - Nobody cares that J.B. Van Hollen thinks Kathy Falk is a liar. The media doesn't care. The voting public wants to be left alone at this point. Any press about this Van Hollen lawsuit is about 2-3 weeks too late to do any real good. And I can't see how Wisconsin's going to split the top offices. As goes one, so goes the other, but this one by a smaller margin - just like 2002. Falk by 2.

Other constitutional offices - Doug LaFollette and Jack Voight. Yawn.

U.S. Senate - Herb Kohl by at least 25.

2nd CD - If you allowed everyone who supports Dave Magnum to vote twice, he might eke it out. Otherwise, Baldwin by 30.

8th CD - By all accounts, Team Gard is feeling good about where things are moving, and they should be. Gard's got the momentum. The big question is, will the movement be too little too late? Considering that we've recently seen Green polling well behind Doyle in some parts of that district, there are no coattails for Gard to ride on. Of course, Kagen's spent the last three weeks trying to cut his tails off and hand them to Gard. Gard wins the northern part of the district, but is going to lose Appleton by too large a margin to make it up in Brown County. Kagen by 1 and change.

Gay marriage amendment - Passes 54-46. Fair Wisconsin loses the battle but wins the war. The pro-amendment side can't afford to lose a battle anywhere in the U.S., and judging by numbers in other states, they're at the edge of the cliff right now. Republicans have juiced this issue as much as they can. The resistance has been mobilized, attitudes are changing, and the winds of change are a-blowin'. Just not enough to win this one right now. I suppose if I were like some other bloggers I'd consider my own opposition to the amendment and just pick it to go down 87-13. But again, objectivity here.

Death penalty - Passes 56-44. Don't ask why. It's just a hunch.

State Assembly - Throwing a number out there is a total crap shoot, since turnout will be key in so many of these races. The GOP could lose one. It could lose seven.

Here are three categories to keep an eye on tomorrow:

"Flip a coin" - Top candidates for Dem pickups are Mark Pettis (duh...), the Menominee/New Richmond open seat vacated by Andy Lamb (Republicans are reportedly afflicted with a bad case of Lazy Candidate Syndrome), the Oshkosh seat vacated by Gregg Underheim (can the GOP candidate write checks without a campaign treasurer?), the rural Dane/Jefferson seat vacated by David Ward, and Brett Davis. Sorry, Brett. The Playground thinks you're fantastic, but, well, it's that damn district of yours. Couldn't you have bought a house somewhere other than Oregon?

"Probably won't happen, but don't be surprised if it does" - Gene Hahn and Judy Krawczyk. Hahn's probably lucky to have gotten Meagan Yost again, and Judy Krawczyk has spent the last six weeks with a huge target on her back. Wonder who she walked out on today?

"Dark horse special" - Ame Grail over Garey Bies. Grail's worked hard and all signs are that Alan Lasee's numbers in Door County aren't great. Plus, the seat hasn't been Republican all that long to begin with.

On the Dem side? Keep an eye on Bob Ziegelbauer's race, which may hinge on how many liberal voters attempt to spell "Anne-Marie Woznicki" rather than take a team vote for Bob. Also, an outside shot that Van Wanggaard will knock off union guy Cory Mason in the race to replace Rep. John Lehman. I've heard many people say that Mason hasn't been a great candidate, but that district's voting history may be enough to save him anyway.

The Supervisor has little faith in the Assembly Democratic machine, but is going to stick his neck out for them and bring them back at 42, up three seats.

State Senate - Joe Leibham is nowhere on the radar anymore, but that still leaves us with four hotly-contested races.

Ron Brown - Some Republicans think Brown is vulnerable. Other says it's much ado about nothing. If I were a swing voter in Brown's district, the death knell on Kathleen Vinehout's campaign should've been her bad poetry. Brown to retain - but barely.

Racine open (Stepp) - Flip a coin. Unfortunately, I have to pick, and I fear that Bill MacReynolds is going to be the best political candidate in Wisconsin to lose this fall. John Lehman to reclaim the seat in a squeaker. Don't be surprised to see school buses outside polling stations with Illinois license plates. Don't think of it as fraud. Think of it as insurance.

Dave Zien - See Ron Brown. He's dead. He's fine. He's dead. He's fine. I will believe that Dave Zien's political career is done when I see the Democrats dragging his political corpse through the streets of the north side of Eau Claire. Zien retains and lets off some steam by retiring to the shooting range in his basement.

Tom Reynolds - Either way, the Democrats win. Reynolds is the poster child for evangelical nuttiness in the state of Wisconsin. He makes Republicans look crazy. Look for Jim Sullivan to win in the 2-4 point range. And if Reynolds wins, Spivak and Bice better find a new gig, since they've spent four years trying to wipe him out.

So where are we? Senate Democrats +2. And losing either the Stepp or Reynolds seat virtually assures us that Dale Schultz will be back as majority leader (which really, is fine. Look at that caucus. He is by far their best option.)

Federal wrap-up - When all is said and done, Nancy Pelosi will be measuring the curtains, reclaming the majority in the House with between 223-226 seats. On the Senate side, Jim Webb, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jon Tester, Bob Casey, and Claire McCaskill are all shopping for houses in the D.C. area on Wednesday morning. Bob Corker retains for the Republicans, which is fine because his daughter is smoking hot. Senate Democrats +6.

No On The Amendment

I was undecided until Dawn Freese came out with her letter in the Platteville Exponent. But now I'm a no vote.

Kidding.

If you would have asked me about the amendment when I was in high school, a much younger, more rabid Supervisor would've told you yes before you could even finish the question. He probably would've prattled through all the rhetoric that you hear from so many who support the amendment - rhetoric that is largely the product of benign ignorance.

When I was in high school, I didn't know a single person who was gay. Okay, it turns out that I knew gay people, they just weren't out yet. Like many kids in Wisconsin, I lived a sheltered, suburban existence, one in which mostly white families drove mostly new cars and lived in mostly nice houses with mostly mowed lawns. I really had very little in the way of life experience, other than the experiences I shared with people who were basically just like me.

That's all changed for me, and I'm quite fortunate that I've been able to see and do a lot of different things since high school. However, when I walk around the neighborhood back home, I realize quickly that a great many Wisconsinites never break out of that sheltered existence.

That will be what it will be. I'm not condemning them for their decisions or their life choices. But perspective comes from having a breadth of experiences. And that's why I stress that it's important to remember that this is benign ignorance. A lot of the people casting yes votes are not people who hate homosexuals. They just haven't had an opportunity to interact with gay people on a regular basis. It's easy to make generalizations about what you don't know or understand.

Since leaving home, I've had the good fortunate to meet a number of fantastic people who also happen to be gay. Some have been out the whole time I've known them. Others, well, their sexual orientation came as a complete shock to me.

But what I've discovered is that even though I may not agree with homosexuality in principle, I don't believe that God put me here to pass judgment on His behalf. I don't hand out forgiveness or redemption. My friends know what I think but it's not an issue. They know that I don't care that they're gay. It's not my job to browbeat them. Believe me, they're not unfamiliar with the Bible. Many of them turn to the same places the rest of us do to find answers. Most of them have struggled plenty with their identity at one point or another, moreso than most straight people I know.

Want to find someone who's got a pretty damn good idea of who they are? Ask someone who's out. Chances are they've thought about their identity more than many of us will in three lifetimes.

Marriage as a legal contract and marriage as recognized by God are entirely separate entities. If you believe in God and get married in a church but don't sign a marriage license, do think God doesn't recognize the sincerity of your vows? Do you really think God cares about the signatures on that paper, like He's got a big filing cabinet in heaven? Like He's the Clerk of Courts or something? Because that's what we're talking about here. We're talking about a legal arrangement between two adults, and nothing more. If you legalized gay marriage tomorrow, I doubt you'd see the WELS churches throwing their doors open and holding marriage ceremonies between gays and lesbians. And that's fine. That's their decision to make. Free association is a beautiful thing.

I think this amendment will come down to one deciding factor: how many Wisconsinites have a gay family member, or friend, or acquaintance? An overwhelming majority of the people who can answer yes to that question are going to vote no on the amendment. And it's not because we're all God-haters, or we're trying to subvert the moral underpinnings of society. It's not even because we all agree with homosexuality.

It's because we have seen the quiet hurt of those who are reminded every day of their lives that society as a whole isn't quite ready to accept them yet. We have shared in their tears and their joys. We share in their humanity. We value their happiness.

If you answered no to that question, think for a moment about how you would respond if you found out your son or daughter was gay. Your brother or sister. Your best friend. Your favorite teacher or mentor. Really think about it. Think about the life you would want for them. Think about whether their happiness would detract from your life, or add to it; whether you believe legally recognizing their partnership would somehow threaten your family or your children.

If you do, I think the answer will be as simple for you as it is for me and the legions of others who believe that, while we can't guarantee the approval of God, we can guarantee equality under the law. And really, truly, that's all gays and lesbians are asking for. This isn't about equality before God. It's about equality before their fellow man.

I hope Wisconsin votes no, but if it doesn't, it's a temporary setback. The reason so many conservatives are frantically trying to pass these amendments now is because they know change is in the air. The biggest opinion shifts on this issue have been among senior citizens. The amendment will also lose, and may lose badly, among voters under 30. The ones who soon will be the voters under 40, and then the voters between 40-55, and then senior citizens.

Our views on this issue aren't changing. And our kids? Probably even more liberal on this issue than we are. If it goes on the books, fine. Someday, we'll take it off. But I hope it doesn't come to that.

In 1921, Wisconsin was the first state to eliminate legal discrimination against women. In 1982, Wisconsin was the first state to grant protection to gays and lesbians under a state fair employment law. In 1991, Wisconsin was the first state to eliminate legal discrimination based on genetic testing.

Let's not turn our back now on a legacy of tolerance and fairness that's taken nearly a century to create.

2nd District Republicans Get Out The Vote!

A picture is worth a thousand words.

No on the Death Penalty Referendum

Even though I think advisory referenda are a colossal waste of time, I'll offer up a few quick thoughts.

Conservatives are constantly telling me that I can't trust the deductive reasoning of activist judges, or of juries who hand down large monetary verdicts against corporations. But now they want me to trust those same judges and juries when it comes to deciding whether or not an individual should be executed.

So on the one hand I should trust judges and juries. And on the other hand, I shouldn't.

Yeah, that's about what I'd expect from the conservative movement these days.

No system of justice is foolproof, and the execution of even one innocent person is too great a price to pay for whatever benefit some might believe the death penalty would provide.

Prominent Republicans throw support to Sullivan in the 5th

Former state Rep. Hank Urban and his wife, ex-Broofield mayor Kate Bloomberg, are endorsing Jim Sullivan over King Wingnut Tom Reynolds in the 5th Senate District. You can read the article on the Brookfield News website.

Best quote:

Reynolds is an "embarrassment to our communities" who "puts his own shortsighted, obsolete views before the interests of his constituents and Wisconsin."

Falk for AG

When Kathleen Falk ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2002, I said at the time that if she was nominated, she'd be a slam dunk in the general. Kathy Falk is the kind of candidate who would be nearly invincible in a statewide race in Wisconsin. Fiscally responsible, socially liberal, and a woman to boot. I'm not debating whether that should matter or not (I don't think it should), but it's usually good for a couple of points.

Now it's time to help prove me right. Vote Falk. Don't think of it as voting for your next Attorney General. Think of it as voting for your next governor.

8th Congressional District: John Gard

John Gard's speakership was a train wreck, but I'm not sure that's entirely John's fault. I mean, he started out by dismissing a veteran chief of staff in favor of a woman without substantial legislative experience. Then he decided to resuscitate the in-building career of a guy who was best known for helping Rudy Silbaugh back to the private sector and briefly hosting a public access show in Sun Prairie.

Whereas Jensen worked to include everyone, the strategy of Team Gard seemed to involve not returning phone calls, excluding as many people as possible, and then trying to sell the team message at interminable staff meetings. Sure, there's no "I" in "team." But there sure was a lot of "M" and "E" in there.

The 8th District, however isn't electing a President or a Speaker. They're electing a freshman representative to the House. Keeping that in mind, the Playground offers its endorsement to John Gard.

This endorsement isn't for the John Gard who ran the show. It's an endorsement for the thoughtful, intelligent, reasonable guy who served all those years before moving into 211 West. The one that would sit down at the negotiating table and get things done. The one that knows you can find compromises without sacrificing your principles.

Being in legislative leadership seems to draw attention to the worst aspects of a legislator's personality. But we shouldn't lose sight of the good ones. The one that made sure a veteran staffer got a small raise even though this person served the state loyally for so many years that the pay grid actually ran out of space for a raise. The one that understood that even when you started working in leadership, you didn't stop having a family. The one that would drive out to an event held by a colleague and stick around to talk to people even if there were only 10 or 20 people in the room.

I've had my policy differences with John Gard. That goes without saying. But what you can't pick up on by watching television commercials is that John Gard is a nice guy. He's smart and practical and will be the kind of congressman that Northeast Wisconsin can be proud of.

I'm sure Steve Kagen is a nice guy too and could be a good congressman... someday. But unfortunately, the more Kagen talks right now, the more he comes across as an empty suit. The kind of candidate that is nominated because of a good community profile and his ability to self-finance. I'm sure Kagen is an extremely intelligent man. He wouldn't have been this successful in life if he wasn't. In watching their debates, however, it was abundantly clear that Kagen lacked Gard's comfort with issues other than health care. That issue is important - probably the most important one this nation has to face. But there's more to being a congressman than that.

Given a choice between a veteran politician and a political newcomer, there's a lot to be said for picking the veteran. He knows the system. He can hit the ground running. Sure, he comes with some baggage and voters will have to consider that carefully. But after they do, they'd be smart to recognize that John Gard is the better choice.

If I thought this race was crucial to returning control of the House to the Democrats, I'd be pleading with you to vote for Steve Kagen. But the math doesn't seem to bear this race out as being make-or-break. In that light, Northeast Wisconsin should simply elect the best candidate afforded them. And that's John Gard.

Wisconsin's David Souter?

I think he's a perfectly fine justice and is more than qualified for his job. But with some of his current rulings (including ruling with the majority to shelve Mark Green's Election Board matter until after the election), I wonder if the Republicans who pushed Justice Pat Crooks' candidacy back in 1996 ever feel like they didn't quite get the guy they thought they were getting.

Just because I like the word "charlatan"

Owen says that Kathy Falk is linked to one. Read more here.