Just when you thought the punch bowl was empty...

...out comes Jeremiah Wright with another tub of orange sherbet and a couple more two-liter bottles of ginger ale to keep the party hoppin'.

First, Wright goes on Bill Moyers' show last week and tells us all that Obama's act of distancing himself from the controversy surrounding Wright is nothing more than an act of political convenience. Said Wright, "(W)hat happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bites, he responded as a politician. But he did not disown me because I’m a pastor."

Lovely.

Now, he's fully embracing his role as the newest race-baiting media whore, telling the National Press Club today that all of this hubbub about his racist rantings and blaming whites for making AIDS are nothing short of an "attack on the black church." Today, we got gems like "When Louis Farrakhan speaks, it's like when E.F. Hutton speaks...Black America listens," and "Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy."

Excellent. That sound you keep hearing in the background are those white voters in swing states heading to the exits. Keep talkin', crazy man. Keep defending your racist schtick and Louis Farrakhan. Keep winking at the crowds and suggesting that Barack Obama's only doing what he has to do to get elected.

Wasserman vows to serve just long enough to max out his pension (almost)

From WisPolitics:

“I think you get to a point in your career where it’s up or out, where you move on with your life and where you feel that you’ve accomplished what you can and you have to seek better opportunities,” said Wasserman. “And I will be able to accomplish more in the Senate.”

Wasserman said he feels strongly that there should be term limits in Wisconsin, but knows it’s unlikely limits would pass the Legislature. So he's promising if elected to serve the 8th Senate District, he'll serve three terms “at the most.” (emphasis added)

So in other words, Wasserman vows to end his career in public service by 2020, at the age of 59. By then, his WRS age reduction factor will be .981. Not sticking around for that extra 1.9% proves that he is the real fiscal conservative.

Concrete Mafia to Leggies: Don't f@#$ with our money

DOT, the Transportation Development Authority, and the Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association, a trifecta that bears closer resemblance to the Gambino Family than anything else in Wisconsin politics, is sending a clear message to leggies: don't f!#$ with our money. If you do, you might not get your road projects, which your constituents hate, and of course, implicitly, you might not get our campaign money, which you, the leggie, hate.

Alas, if the hospital assessment is indeed off the table, the transportation fund is one of the easiest pools of segregated money from which to make up the difference.

Good legislating? Hardly. But if politicians aren't willing to cut and they aren't willing to raise taxes, then they have no choice but to resort to usual tactics of begging, borrowing, and stealing.

Breaking news

From the Green Bay Press-Gazette:

GREEN BAY — Former Assembly Speaker John Gard is expected to announce Sunday that he intends to run to unseat U.S. Rep Steve Kagen, D-Appleton.

Next thing you know, the Press-Gazette will be reminding us that the sun came up this morning.

He likes boys who wear Abercrombie & Fitch

He'd take 'em if he had one wish, and he thinks it's fly when they stop by for the summer...

Playground Contest: How badly will Chad Fradette lose?

Chad Fradette, best known as being the patron saint of shitty-looking Nativity scenes, announced today that he's running for State Senate.

Conventional wisdom is that Dave Hansen's such a lock that his remaining grandkids shouldn't have to worry about their safety this fall. But what I want to know from you, dear readers, is how badly you think Fradette is going to lose.

Please feel free to leave your predictions below. The winner, come November, will get a $10 gift certificate to Los Magueyes in Green Bay. Los Magueyes serves Mexican food that's about as authentic as it comes in Green Bay. That probably means there are people there who speak Spanish, and might even be from Mexico. Which undoubtedly means that Chad Fredette will try to scapegoat them and shut them down during his campaign for cheap, race-baiting PR.

If they don't sell gift certificates, I'll just send you ten bucks. That's how much I care about you, my readers.

Rules: Predictions can be left below, if you have a identity through Google/Blogger or Open ID, or leave some other way of identifying yourself (I need to be able to identify you to give you a prize). For those who wish to play but do not want to be identified, you can email your prediction to playgroundpolitics (at) gmail (dot) com. Your anonymity is ensured. Please put "PREDICTION" in your subject heading. One entry per person. All entries must be received by 12:00 a.m. on Election Day. Ties are broken in favor of the earlier entry.

Who's really got the sense of entitlement?

From Maureen Dowd's column today:

In the final days in Pennsylvania, (Obama) dutifully logged time at diners and force-fed himself waffles, pancakes, sausage and a Philly cheese steak. He split the pancakes with Michelle, left some of the waffle and sausage behind, and gave away the French fries that came with the cheese steak.

But this is clearly a man who can’t wait to get back to his organic scrambled egg whites. That was made plain with his cri de coeur at the Glider Diner in Scranton when a reporter asked him about Jimmy Carter and Hamas.

“Why” he pleaded, sounding a bit, dare we say, bitter, “can’t I just eat my waffle?”

His subtext was obvious: Why can’t I just be president? Why do I have to keep eating these gooey waffles and answering these gotcha questions and debating this gonzo woman?

And people say that Hillary is the one with the enormous sense of entitlement? Hey, at least she's put in her time and taken her hits. Obama's sense of entitlement stems from his own unfailing belief that he is the greatest thing ever.

During his concession speech last night, Obama said that "During the course of this campaign, we've all learned what my wife reminds me of all the time -- that I am not a perfect man." This is a boilerplate line that Obama's been using in his stump speech for months. But, of course, it raises an important question:

If Obama is such a conscious, self-aware guy, why does he constantly need reminders from his wife that he's not without flaw? Is it because he often falls prey to thinking that he's infallible?

Has Obama jumped the shark?

• Barack Obama outspent Hillary Clinton 3-to-1 in Pennsylvania and lost by ten. Shouldn't that be story? Why can't the uber-charismatic guy with all the money win important states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, states Democrats need to pick up in November to have a shot at winning?

• For all the bogus spin we hear from both sides about their candidates changing the map, let's get real. The November election will be fought in the same six states that the last two elections were fought in - Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, Michigan, and Virginia. If I were a Democrat, I'd be damn concerned about the fact that Obama does poorly among core swing constituencies in all of those states - blue collar voters, rural whites, and Catholics. Obama's big win in Virginia owed overwhelmingly to black turnout and college-educated voters in the D.C. suburbs. Missouri was close, Michigan wasn't contested, and Obama got blown out in PA, OH, and FL.
  

• Why won't the talking heads mention how Obama's narrow lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote owe largely to his running up the score in states in the Great Plains and the Mountain West that Democrats have absolutely no chance of winning in November? Are Obama's whopping victories in states like Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Kansas really the stuff that Democratic superdelegates want to base their decision on? The voice of voters who will do NOTHING to bring them the White House come November?
  

• Watching Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews make excuses for Obama is hilarious. Matthews looks like someone backed over his puppy with a car. And reading the fawning losers at the NYT whine about Obama's loss is equally tasty. They accuse Clinton of taking the low road, but at least she's taking a road that actually exists. Obama's spent a year trying to sell voters the yellow brick road, and it's starting to come up short. Swing voters aren't buying it.

We know if he thinks you've been bad or good...

From the Appleton Post-Crescent:

MENASHA — Outgoing Mayor Joe Laux authorized $500 each to 35 nonunion city employees three days after the election that ended his 20-year tenure.

Only one of the city's 36 regular full-time and part-time nonunion employees did not get a bonus, according to information provided to The Post-Crescent under a public records request filed last week.

While we may not know who Joe Laux's favorite employee was, it's pretty clear that someone was his least favorite employee.

Weekend Wrap-Up

• Glenn Grothman hates partial-birth abortion, except when it comes to killing a colleague's bill - in this case, a bill by Sue Jeskewitz that would have improved access to juvenile court records for those with legitimate needs to review them. Instead of expressing his concerns early in the legislative process, Grothman waits until Jeskewitz's bill comes to his house, and then objects to it. And then he lobbies the governor hard to veto the bill and tap dances on the bill's grave when he gets his way. Way to be a colleague, Glenn. Let the bill almost be born, then pull it halfway out and crush its skull. Seriously, is there anyone who has been a bigger GOP disappointment in the last decade than Glenn Grothman? Killing this Jeskewitz bill is his biggest accomplishment this session. Last session, he was the Man who F#)$ed Up TABOR. Every day he and his staff wake up and try to re-open a battle over the Family Planning Waiver that he lost during the McCallum administration. I'm glad we have him around in the minority instead of Mary Panzer.

• Barack Obama still keeps accidentally saying what he really thinks about white people. This week, Obama launched a screed in front of a San Francisco crowd that explained that white folks only care about God and guns and closed borders because they're losing their jobs and they're angry. Funny that Obama is simultaneously using his own faith to show his depth of character while deriding the faith of others as nothing but the product of economic frustration. Please, I beg of you, Democrats: pick this one. Please. His condescension will be a strong asset in a general election.

• Two separate polls this week show that majorities of Wisconsinites support a workplace smoking ban that includes bars, and oppose transfers from the transportation fund to solve the budget shortfall. Man, it's a good thing voters constantly forgive politicians for ignoring them, or elected officials would really be screwed.

• Alberta Darling is dying. Or maybe not. It depends on who you ask and what you mean by "dying." Darling's moribund campaign got all worked up about a Democratic reference to the Senator being in ill health. A needless pot shot by the Democrats, especially when challenger Sheldon Wasserman has out-knocked Darling by a total of about 12,000-5. Darling is clearly in decent health because she is able to constantly skip out on events and commitments in Wisconsin to vacation in Florida.

• Word is that multiple AssGOP leadership staffers will be seeking greener pastures outside the building in the months preceding the campaign. If Fraley thinks that Kreuser running for a better-paying job is a sign of Democratic weakness, I wonder if he also thinks that a bunch of AssGOP leadership staff jumping ship before campaign season is a sign of Republican political weakness? Me, personally? My guess is that the Assembly Dems pick up between 5-7 seats, which means about 30 AssGOP staff positions will be eliminated.
  

• A Brennan Center for Justice report showed that 89 percent of all money spent on the Supreme Court race was spent by third party organizations. Man, I'm sure glad our judiciary is so independent and not beholden to groups that spent nearly nine of every ten dollars on the race.

Supreme Court follies

Like many, I've been pondering the outcome of last week's Supreme Court race. Most of my pondering has gravitated towards the process of election rather than the outcome of this particular ballot.

I'm not particularly disturbed by Michael Gableman's victory, nor do I impart much meaning to it. As I've said previously, I don't think either Butler or Gableman is especially qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, and most voters can't cast an informed ballot because they have no idea what an appellate court does.

Louis Butler spent a couple of years as a circuit court judge. Before that, he spent a decade presiding over cases involving ordinance violations. And prior to that, he was a public defender - an important job, truly, but one that hardly anyone enters law school trying to land. It's usually the kind of job people settle for. He also ran for the Supreme Court once before and got slaughtered.

Michael Gableman has a law degree from Hamline University, a C-rate law school that is a hardly a destination for anyone looking to pursue a legal career. It's not even in the top 100 in the U.S. News rankings, and rubs shoulders with schools like Cleveland State, Ohio Northern, and the University of Baltimore as a Tier 3 law school. Like Butler, Gableman soon took refuge in public sector work, scoring employment as an Assistant D.A. before obtaining appointments as District Attorney and Circuit Court Judge.

Clearly, these are not two of Wisconsin's finest legal minds. Wisconsin's finest legal minds are probably too busy in private practice to be bothered with a job that pays less than that of a first-year associate.

That's a huge problem, and it's the first step Wisconsin must consider to improve the quality of its future justices. Wisconsin must consider the cost of competence. I've long held that Wisconsin's legislature would be more productive if we either doubled their pay, or cut their pay in half and truly made the job part-time. $48K a year isn't enough to draw a number of highly desirable legislative candidates, and the present workload is too great for most highly-qualifed individuals to consider taking on lawmaking duties in addition to their careers. Of the states with full-time legislatures, Wisconsin ranks dead last in pay.

The same holds true for the Supreme Court. Let's not kid ourselves. Other than a bit of prestige, what kind of draw is a job that pays $135K a year when a first-year associate at Foley & Lardner or Quarles & Brady will probably pull in $175K in salary and bonuses? Is it any wonder then that you get the kinds of candidates for Supreme Court that you do?

Doubling the pay of Supreme Court justices would cost under $1 million annually. Compared to what we waste on feel-good programs like SAGE, that's a drop in the bucket. And the reality is that bumping pay up to around $270K a year will get you better prospects for the court, guaranteed.

The other problem rests entirely with the selection process. Do we really expect qualified judicial candidates to embrace the concept of having their professional reputations dragged through the mud for the honor of holding a job that might pay them a fraction of what they presently make?

Judicial candidates shouldn't be expected to pander to voters. They also shouldn't be held captive to the whims of the electorate. Part of being a judge is making decisions that are sometimes unpopular. Supporters of both Gableman and Butler were guilty of encouraging the public to hang the other guy based on previous rulings that may have been legally proper but went against the wishes of the public. Both were guilty of taking parts of the other's past and putting it in front of the public with virtually no context.

Appellate court justices need to be intellectual. But America is perhaps the one western nation in which campaigns take a decidedly anti-intellectual bent, where candidates dumb down their intellectual pedigree instead of playing it up. Too often, we deride candidates with successful careers and degrees from good schools as being out-of-touch and not like us. Look at what the Republicans did to John Kerry and Al Gore, or what the Democrats did to George H.W. Bush. In each case, the winner of the election was the candidate that voters felt was "more like them."

The Butler/Gableman race pretty much dispelled any concept of judicial integrity that might have existed in campaigns. The garbage Gableman put on the air was only surpassed by the bucket of slime WEAC dumped on Gableman's head in the final weeks of the race.

Most good judicial candidates will be legal creatures, not political ones. They don't want to waste their time raising money or speaking to the Rotary Club. They want to do their job. How could any of those people not be completely repulsed by the campaign they saw unfold over the last few months?

Voters have a pretty good idea of what a legislature does and what a governor does. Voters, however, have no idea what these appellate courts do. Their involvement is what allows the process to be completely perverted by interest groups on both sides. And public financing isn't likely to be worthwhile unless a method is devised to prevent third-party spending on judicial races. It does no good to publicly fund the candidates while interest groups are running amok with money donated by private parties.

At the end of the day, the question is simple: do we want a court made up of independent, highly-qualified legal minds, or would we rather have a court that is forced to pander like politicians, essentially dependent on interest groups and the partisan machine? A court where its members' allegiance is to the rule of law, or where its allegiance is to the WEACs and the WMCs of the world?

The choice for Wisconsin is clear. Raise pay for appellate court justices so that we can recruit decent candidates, and give them a dignified method of selection that allows them to remain focused on their jobs and independent of public pressure. The alternative is also clear: do nothing, and accept that in one or two decades, appellate courts will be dominated by special interest groups who will expect loyalty from those they elect.