Brother, Can You Spare $30.00?

Fair Wisconsin, the group leading the drive to defeat the constitutional amendment to ban civil unions and gay marriage (which of course are already banned in Wisconsin), is trying to raise a few more dollars for the June 30th deadline. Early support helps in multiple ways down the road. All they' re asking for is $30.00. But if you want, give more.

Can you help? Check out their website. Thanks.

A Debate Is Needed on How to Really Get Ethics Reform

There is little doubt that Wisconsin is in need of ethics reform.

The real question is how do we best accomplish it.

Most say (including myself) that Sen. Mike Ellis’ SB-1, the Ethics Reform Bill, is the best way to achieve substantive reform. In a nutshell, the bill combines the Ethics and Elections Boards, and gives the new board real independent authority to go after ethics violations.

Governor Doyle agrees with this position. The State Senate passed this bill 28-5; the State Assembly killed it.

The issue gets more complicated when we have to decide what is the best way to ultimately pass real reform (SB-1).

Some say we go after legislators who voted against reform and make them answer to their constituents this fall. Throw the bums out and replace them with reform-minded replacements.

Others say that the best way to get reform is to have Governor Doyle call a special session on ethics. Since the legislative session is over, Doyle could call the legislature back, and it could show up to answer the call. Since the GOP majority in the Assembly already voted against taking up the bill, it would be an option to try and force the vote again. (Note: The Assembly leadership has ignored past calls for special sessions.)

Under the second scenario, two "positive" outcomes could happen. The best option is that the GOP shows up and passes SB-1 in the version passed by the State Senate. The second is if they don’t, everyone realizes once again that the GOP is full of it on ethics. These are the fairytale outcomes; everything works out in the end. We pass the bill OR we again show who are the obstacles to reform.

The problem as many see it, however, is either of those special session alternatives has little to no chance of occurring.

Far more likely, one of these alternatives would occur:

1) The GOP heeds the call for a special session, but passes SB-1 in a form that has been proposed by Rep. Mark Gundrum. That version merges the boards, but kills the enforcement mechanism. In essence, they pass SB-1, but kill ethics reform. The GOP claims victory. The Governor either signs a sham bill or vetoes it. If he vetoes it, “independent” 527 groups will spend a half million dollars or more saying Doyle vetoed ethics reform. Ouch.

Why is this option most likely? Well, Mark Green said so in his own “ethics reform” package released last week. Green claims he supports SB-1, yet calls for an “inspector general” to investigate ethics violations. Why would you need that if it is already included in SB-1? Because Green knows if the legislature is called back into session it will kill the enforcement mechanism. Thanks for the heads up Mark. Other GOP sources have confirmed this as well.

In the end, passing SB-1 kills ethics reform.

Or 2) The GOP heeds the call for a special session, but sends a bill that doesn’t resemble SB-1, but instead resembles the “ethics reforms” proposed by Mark Green. Ethics reform - Mark Green style - helps Mark Green and the GOP largely, not the greater public. Being so close to an election, Green’s sham plan gets credibility. The Governor has to either sign a bad bill or veto “ethics reform”. If he vetoes it, once again fake groups kill him on television saying he killed ethics reform.

Under either scenario, the big losers besides the public are the legislative Democrats and the Governor. Clearly, the Assembly Democrats voted unanimously for pulling SB-1 for a vote, following Governor Doyle’s lead on the bill. Only five Assembly Republicans did, though they later voted three more times to kill reform. We have a strong vehicle to go to the voters with and try to replace the legislators who oppose reform. The best issue to hit the state in a decade would be lost, as all the Republicans who killed ethics reform would now have a second vote, on a potentially fake bill, in their pocket to confuse the issue. Bottom line: the GOP majority stays in office for another term and no reform occurs.

Oh, and one more possible scenario: The GOP lets a few more members off the hook to vote for SB-1, but doesn’t get the same version passed in the Senate and Assembly. No bill actually passes, due to different versions in each house, but more Assembly Republicans vote for “ethics reform” to ensure their reelection. Again, no reform, but political confusion wins.

So, do we work hard to defeat anti-reform legislators this fall or do we try to force a vote with a special session, hoping for a postive outcome?

Currently I am concerned that there are far more outcomes under the special session scenario that would mean some version of SB-1 passes, but in reality ethics reform is killed. The real SB-1 bill in its current form would not be what passes. I certainly don’t want that to happen.

So, here’s the question. What should we do? Is there another positive strategy we could follow?

I’m fearful that short of getting an ironclad promise from Rep. Mike Huebsch (in essence, the real GOP leader in the Assembly) on a up-or-down vote on the State Senate's version of SB-1, we could easily give the GOP an out while they kill reform.

I’m seeking your input. What are your thoughts? What is the best way to get ethics reform?

Vote the legislators who killed SB-1 out of office? That's where we are now. Or open the process up and take our chances? Or is there another strategy we could take? Please share your thoughts.

Whatever ultimately happens should be what gets us closest to passing real reform. I think a little more debate about what process should occur to get us there needs to happen first.

Green Touts His Failure on Getting Ethics Reform Passed

The press conference today by gubernatorial candidate Mark Green was a whole lot of distortion and distraction from his own and his party's ethical problems.

He said he supported SB-1, the Ethics Reform Bill, and that he talked to GOP leaders urging them to pass the bill. However, unlike Governor Doyle, who supports SB-1 and got every single Democratic member of the State Assembly to vote for reform, Green only got five people to vote for it out of 60. He claimed he strongly supported it, but obviously not strong enough to get it passed. Had he really wanted it passed he would have told John Gard not to even think about running for his congressional seat unless it passed. Instead, Green raised money for his own campaign while the GOP killed ethics reform.

Green also said he wants an "Inspector General" position to root out government corruption. However, he never explained why that was necessary when SB-1 would have given independent authority to the newly created Board to do just that. Word we hear is that if Doyle calls a special session on ethics, the Republicans plan to gut SB-1 and merge the Ethics and Elections Boards ONLY, and NOT give them independent authority to investigate. In other words, they'll take credit for reform WHILE killing it. No wonder Green had to offer a new position to allegedly investigate corruption. He must know what his party will do if they have to vote on SB-1.

Further, Green offered again his call for spending limits of both candidates, but failed to mention that 527's (independent "issue" organizations) can still spend millions attacking Doyle under spending limits. They would have no limit. Essentially, he wants to tie the hands of Jim Doyle, while allowing conservative front groups the ability to kick the **** out of Doyle. Right, like anyone is going to fall for that....

So, in the end Green did what was expected. He tryed to sound tough on government reform, but his past and his present indicate otherwise.

I have to admit hearing Green lecture about government reform was about as credible as hearing Paris Hilton lecture about the problems of living on the minimum wage. Right.

Green Misses April Fool's Day by Two Months, Twenty-Two Days

I'm guessing this was originally planned as an April Fool's joke, but got lost in the Green campaign headquarters....

Mark Green Press Conference Discussing Reform Plan for Honest, Open Government
6/23/2006 10 a.m.
Concourse Hotel, University C, Second Floor, 1 West Dayton Street, Madison.

GREEN BAY – Congressman Mark Green, the Republican candidate for governor, will hold a press conference in Madison on Friday, June 23, 2006, to discuss his plan to take Wisconsin back from the special interests. Green believes we must take steps to restore taxpayer’s faith in their government. His plan proposes needed reforms that seek to root out corruption, waste, fraud and abuse in state government, removes the influence of campaign contributions on the government contracting process and calls for greater transparency in lobbying and campaign finance disclosures. “We have to take steps to restore the shaken confidence voters have in their government,” said Green. “I believe it is time to take government away from the special interests and give it back in the hands of the people of Wisconsin.”

Contact: Rob Vernon Office: 920-435-2006

I'll say this about Mark Green. He DOES know corruption. He's so very good at it.

First, Mark Green was Chair of the Republican Caucus while Scott Jensen was robbing the taxpayers blind. What he knew and when he knew it are yet to be discussed by Green. Further, when he left the Assembly he destroyed all his electronic files and those of an aide mentioned in the caucus scandals. And, don't forget Green still can't answer if he'll pardon Scott Jensen if elected Governor.

Second, in Congress Green is the darling of the special interests. He's taken thousands from big oil and big drug companies, while returning the favor by passing on tax breaks, subsidies and corporate give-a-ways.

Third, Mark Green is about as close to the scandal plagued Tom Delay as any two straight men should be. Check this out (thanks to Carrie Lynch of What's Left). No, no guy-on-guy action, just the facts about their close financial relationship. Of all the members of Congress, Green is in the top ten of all members in his relations to Delay.

And, Green has yet to support any meaningful campaign finance measure or ethics reform measure proposed in Madison. While his friends in the legislature killed SB-1, the Ethics Reform Bill, Green was as quiet as can be. He was too busy raising money for his own campaign to break and stand up for any real reform.

So, what does Mark Green know about good government? Well, nothing. He knows corruption for sure. He's learned from the best - Tom Delay. But don't expect anything credible at his press event tomorrow. Other than to learn he missed April Fool's Day.

GOP: Party of Corruption Trying to Taint Others

This is today's sleaze release by the Republican Party of Wisconsin.

I was there today during the "dog and pony" hearing the GOP majority held during the Joint Committee on Finance meeting today.

FIVE times Sen. Scott Fitzgerald tried to get former Department of Administration Secretary Marc Marotta to say he talked to Adelman Travel during the contracting process. Each time Marotta was clear. "Without exception" he followed the law he said.

Even Tommy Thompson's former Department of Administration Secretary Mark Bugher appeared and said the procurement process is no different than under Tommy's administration. The only significant difference according to Bugher? Doyle saved taxpayers an additional $100 million.

The hearing was painful. To watch the GOP try to distract, distort and divide the public by misdirecting their own ethical problems of Scott Jensen, Mickey Foti and others as well as their killing the Ethics Reform Bill this session was unfair to a dedicated public servant like Marotta.

I was waiting for the question, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party." It was the only thing missing today.

The GOP release? Well, if you have a bird, you can make the only good use of it.

Great Editorial in WSJ Today - "Views of the Capital Times"

Sorry but I can't find the link, but check it out if you can.

The Capital Times editorial in today's Wisconsin State Journal talks about the Take Back America Conference I attended. A number of major Democratic speakers were there, most thinking about running for President.

John Nichols of the Capital Times (and the Nation) is right on with his analysis of how the candidates scored points on the Iraq War.

Hillary Clinton gave a overall strong speech, with the exception of her waffling on the Iraq War. It's hard to straddle a fence for an entire half hour. The crowd booed her on that issue, but overall gave her a warm response. My personal note: I think she intentionally included the line to get "boos", showing she's not too left. Inspiring?

John Kerry not only gave a very strong speech (where was that John Kerry during the campaign?), but APOLOGIZED for his wrong vote on the Iraq war. Big cheers.

But, as Nichols points out, who didn't have to apologize for getting the most important vote of the Bush years wrong? Wisconsin's own Russ Feingold.

Please find the link and send it to me, I'll post it...Thanks!

What Really Matters in Politics

Coming back from the Take Back America conference in Washington, DC, I have been thinking about the type of people who get into politics. There are the Russ Feingold and Barack Obama’s who spoke at the conference. Both are people of impeccable credentials, solid values and willing to stand up for what is right, not what is politically expedient.

Then you have, well, most politicians who care deeply about one thing - getting elected or reelected. (There are plenty of local exceptions, too many to print, but that is not meant as a slight to anyone. I’m referring to the conference primarily as I write.)

The difference between the statesman and the politician has a lot to do with the ability to do the right thing, period. Voting the right way, no matter the cost. Speaking out about what really matters. Appointing and helping elect people of good values and work ethic because they are the right people, regardless of outside pressures. Essentially, people who have a solid barometer of who there are and what they believe in, as well as what is in the public’s best interests. They inspire.

The politician does what he or she needs to in order to get ahead. Voting with the polls, only. Speaking out on what is politically expedient, but only if it personally helps the pol out. Going the way of least resistance, giving in to bullies and special interests, making government a whole lot more average than extraordinary. Bottom line: Whatever is in the personal interest of the pol, rather than the public, happens. Political expediency.

I’ve seen all sorts of elected officials over the years. Many start out for the right reasons, but soon devolve to being a full-time politician, rather than a statesman. Their compass is right, they know better in their hearts, but they find plenty of reasons to go the path of least resistance.

But all too often that path is covered in thorns. When you lose the support you had because you once had ethics and values, you lose more than a supporter or two. You lose the credibility on more issues. More people start to question your every move. The reasons why you entered public service now are long gone. And all too often, you stand alone in the end.

I look forward to the coming presidential election. I personally hope Russ Feingold gets in the race. He is the sort of person who I strongly admire. And interestingly, so does the public - Republicans, Independents and Democrats. Just look at the last election. Kerry won Wisconsin by a little over 11,000 votes. Feingold, in the same election, won the state by over 330,000 votes. Character does matter. And I think it will in 2008 as much as it does this fall.

Let’s all find candidates that inspire us.

While I Was Out….

While I was away from blogging, I attended two major political events.

The first event I attended was the State Democratic Convention in LaCrosse. Rather than be a bad blogger and give you blow-by-blow of past events, I’ll just focus on some highlights:

* U.S. Senator Russ Feingold was a major hit of the convention. He delivered a strong speech, energizing the base with his message of hopeful Democratic engagement. There is no question why anyone looks at Feingold and sees Presidential timber.

* Governor Jim Doyle laid out his campaign themes, focusing on his strengths and what he’s done for Wisconsin, as well as a contract to the Washington world of Dick Cheney/Jack Abramoff/Rep. Mark Green. Doyle has been the responsible leader fixing an inherited $3.2 billion deficit, funding education and stopping a whole lot of bad bills from becoming law. The contrast was clear.

* The Attorney General’s race had a respectful performance by both Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager and Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk. Both had energized supporters and remained generally positive towards each other. Keep up the focus on beating the GOP this fall!

* The normally quiet Secretary of State race was energized as challenger Scot Ross had a strong display of support in his bid to unseat current SOS Doug La Follette. La Follette stressed his performance in office to a favorable crowd as well.

The convention was a strong display of Democratic unity going into the fall. Let’s hope it will hold through this Fall’s elections.

Next blog….the Take Back America Conference.

I'm Baaaack.....

Sorry for the lack of blogs, but look for some new postings on Friday.

I've been out-of-town for the Wisconsin Democratic Party convention in LaCrosse and the Take Back America conference in Washington D.C.

I'll give some short reviews of both, as well as state political analysis...starting tomorrow.

Sorry for the absence.

Lautenschlager’s Bad Judgment on Early Attack Against Falk

OK, I guess we knew the gloves would come off at some point in the Democratic primary for Attorney General. But I would have hoped it would have been with more substance.

Lautenschlager’s campaign put out a press release on the eve of the Democratic convention questioning Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk’s “Democratic” credentials. Yikes. Get these:

- A Green Bay newspaper once said Falk might be a possible GOP gubernatorial candidate, in their opinion

- Tommy Thompson once might have maybe possibly considered appointing Falk to something, maybe

- Falk once said she respected a Republican politician (me too - Fighting Bob La Follette was once a Republican, guess I’m John Gard’s b**ch too)

- And Falk has only been a paid member of the party since the last decade.

Ouch. Tough policy disagreements I see. Please.

There are plenty of substantive issues that Peg and Kathleen will differ on during the campaign. Fair game. But trotting out this tripe sure does seem silly.

Besides, if one really wants to go back to the voting history of a once State Representative Peg Lautenschlager one might see a much more conservative voting record than she would prefer people to see. To her credit, she held a tough Fond du Lac district and now she is quite strong as a Democrat. But be careful what you trot out at election time. It can come back to bite you hard.
I hope we can all look toward a more substantive campaign in the future.


P.S. For full disclosure, I have endorsed Kathleen Falk for Attorney General. I like Peg and have known her for years, and I have no plans to trash her. I just think Kathleen has the best chance at holding the AG's seat in the Democratic column. But I would like a fair campaign. I expect that from BOTH candidates. May the best person win.

Fight the Right: Give to Fair Wisconsin

I almost forgot the reason why I wanted to get more campaign focused on June 1 with my blog. Now I can say "vote for" or "vote against" candidates and ask you to give money to good people and causes. I couldn't do that before from my state site.

Well, after my last blog I forgot to tell you the group fighting the constitutional amendment to ban civil unions and marriage is Fair Wisconsin. Check out their website, or better yet donate. Volunteer. And donate again.

Let’s Start Previewing the Fall Election - State Ballot Measures

There’s a lot on the ballot this November. At the federal level, one of our United States Senate seats is up as is our seat in Congress. At the state level, the Governorship, Lt. Governorship, Attorney General, State Treasurer, State Secretary, State Assembly and half of our State Senate are all up for election. Further, the county constitutional offices are up.

Also on the ballot are two ballot measures. I will briefly profile them today.

One measure would put a ban on gay civil unions, marriage and other benefits of domestic partnerships into our state’s constitution. The other would be an advisory referendum on whether or not Wisconsin should have the death penalty.

Both are stupid.

The measure to ban gay marriages and civil unions would make Wisconsin less like, well, Wisconsin and a whole lot more like Mississippi. It would enshrine family law into our constitution by banning gay marriage (already illegal), civil unions (ditto) and potentially other laws that affect domestic partners. This perhaps is the most egregious.

It is one thing to not support gay marriages. Yes, it is a wonderful institution that deserves state protection from the homos. Hell, almost half of them work out. Let’s not ruin it by allowing two people who love each other to share their commitment via marriage. Even if two people who don’t even know each other’s names can get married by Elvis without evening leaving their car in Las Vegas, let ‘s not let the homos near it. We don’t want to buy more wedding gifts.

And civil unions, hell no. Legal recognition of any kind is wrong. Let the lawyers sort out the affairs of gay “couples”. Who needs legal protections like the other ninety percent of society? No way, bucko. I don’t care if two-thirds of Wisconsinites believe in civil unions, we can’t go there.

But the part that really needs attention is the part in the language proposed to voters that says anything ‘substantially similar’ is not allowed. What does that mean? Well in Ohio and Utah that means opposite sex, unmarried couples are not allowed any benefits that could be given only to married couples. That includes benefits like access to domestic violence laws. In both states men and women have been denied things like restraining orders when they’ve encountered domestic violence, due to their state’s passing a constitutional amendment defining marriage. And in Michigan, the state decided to no longer allow health care benefits to non-married couples. Yup, taking away health care certainly must be in God’s plan.

The bottom line is that the amendment was concocted to help get out the conservative base vote in the fall elections. Period. No good public policy benefit. No real debate. Just a tool for conservative tools. Think Jenna and Co.

Use one group of people to get what you want. Machiavelli would be so proud.

My prediction: Thanks to the strong opposition of the faith community, labor, progressive groups and fair-minded citizens, the measure will fail, making Wisconsin the first state to turn back one of these idiotic measures. And in the process, more younger voters will turn out on college campuses helping elect more Democrats to the state legislature. Thanks John Gard.

On the advisory question of the death penalty, I advise you to reread the reason why the marriage amendment is on the ballot: to bring out conservative voters.

Without getting into the many, many reasons why killing people in the name of the state is wrong for Wisconsin, one really only need to know that it doesn’t deter anyone. The reasons offered why we need it are as wrong as most, no, every conservative dumb-dit. Once, again, conservatives think the public is stupid. I guess if that’s true we really do have a representative democracy in the state legislature.

Every poll shows strong support for the general concept.

My prediction: It passes by a wide margin. A meaningless referendum passes, without the permanent harm of the other amendment. We look stupid, but we still don’t have the death penalty in our statutes.

Watch for more of my fall election analysis, website links, political gossip and telling of conservative lies. I’ll be sure to write more of what you want. Post me suggestions for what else you might like covered. I aim to please.

Political Blog Coming Today

Sorry readers, but I've been real busy since June 1, the day I said my blog would become political. For the conservative dumb-dits who like to laugh saying my blog was political before, just wait, you'll know what I meant. Sorry you don't understand state law well enough.

I will have an extensive campaign post about Democratic races statewide...by the end of today. Thanks for your patience.