Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Endorses Walker

Things are not going well for Tom Barrett.

He's flailing around, saying ludicrous things, looking desperate.

Now, there's more bad news for Barrett: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board came out against the recall and endorsed Governor Scott Walker.

This could be an effort by the Journal Sentinel to win back readers. It could be an editorial decision based on polling, given that the overwhelming majority of Republicans and significant numbers of independents object to the recall.

Anyway, the endorsement isn't much of one. The Board tosses heavy criticism Walker's way. It's almost like going with Walker on a technicality.

No governor in recent memory has been so controversial. No governor in America is so polarizing. Everyone has an opinion about Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

Here's ours: We see no reason to remove Walker from office. We recommend him in the June 5 recall election.

Walker's rematch with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett was prompted by one issue: Walker's tough stance with the state's public-employee unions. It's inconceivable that the recall election would be occurring absent that. And a disagreement over a single policy is simply not enough to justify a vote against the governor.

A Marquette Law School Poll in January showed that many people in the Badger State agree. In that poll, 72% of Republicans, 44% of independents and 17% of Democrats said recalls should be limited to criminal wrongdoing.

It seems like the Journal Sentinel is endorsing Walker just to be on the same side as the people.

A silly endorsement certainly doesn't alter the fact that the JS reads like Democrat campaign literature.

This portion of the Walker endorsement piece is ridiculous:

As for Barrett, we think he has been a good steward of Wisconsin's largest city. Taxes and fees are up, but that's hardly unreasonable given the depth of the budget restraints. Services remain solid. Barrett and his team have helped shepherd new development in the Menomonee Valley, downtown and in the neighborhoods. The mayor has helped heal the often raw relationship between Milwaukee and its suburbs.

Barrett has been a terrible steward of Milwaukee.

He has done a miserable job.

Watch Barrett and Walker react to the JS endorsement.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's endorsement of Governor Scott Walker is drawing both criticism and praise from the two candidates in the bitter recall election.

Walker's challenger, Mayor Tom Barrett downplayed the news while making a stop to speak at a Milwaukee church. Barrett said, "they endorsed him last time, I think they're slanted. Clearly, their editorial policies have gone to the right."

Governor Walker offered his own spin during a campaign stop in Fond du Lac.

He said, "I don't think I've ever heard the Journal Sentinel called right leaning, I think it just reflects the mass majority across the state."

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin issued a statement following the endorsement. In a statement, Chair Mike Tate blasted Governor Walker saying, "It saddens, but does not surprise, that the state's largest newspaper would continue to support the most divisive, and possibly most corrupt, governor in Wisconsin history."

Journal Sentinel "right leaning"?

Barrett is really losing it.

Obama: 'English Embassy'

Obama the Brilliant calls the British Embassy in Iran the "English Embassy."

Lucky for him he's the sitting president and not a candidate for the office.

From The Foundry:

It is gratifying to see President Barack Obama condemn the disgraceful storming of the British Embassy in Tehran by thugs acting at the behest of the Iranian regime. After all, Obama has been notoriously slow in the past to criticise the brutal actions of the Iranian government after initially extending the hand of friendship to it. But did he really need to make another embarrassing foreign policy gaffe while doing so?

In a press conference this evening, the president referred in stumbling fashion to the “English Embassy” in Iran instead of the British Embassy. One can only imagine the kind of howls of derision that would greet any presidential contender if that kind of basic error were made before, say, the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Video.



Yeah, the guy's a genius.

Panetta: India a Threat to U.S.

Herman Cain's command of foreign policy matters has come under fire.

When speaking with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board, Cain appeared befuddled, struggling to get his bearings, when he was asked about Libya. By now, we've all seen the footage.

Whether you watch the news, listen to radio, or get your political information from comedians, the Cain Libyan confusion clip received saturation coverage.

Will Leon Panetta's confusion about the enemies and allies of the U.S. receive similar scrutiny?

It's highly unlikely.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in remarks Thursday, ranked U.S. ally India with China as a rising threat to the U.S. in Asia. The Pentagon quickly sought to roll back the remarks.

“We face the threats from rising powers — China, India, others — that we have to always have sufficient force protection out there in the Pacific to make sure they know we’re never going anywhere,” Mr. Panetta said during a visit to a shipyard in Groton, Conn., where he toured a submarine, the Mississippi, in the final stages of construction.

Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby later sought to clarify Mr. Panetta’s comments. He said Mr. Panetta did not intend to suggest that India and China were military threats to the U.S. and that he believed it was important to forge closer military relations with both countries.

India is a threat to the U.S?

Really?

How can Panetta possibly consider India to be in the same category as China when it comes to potential threats to the U.S.?

While Cain as a possible Republican presidential nominee certainly needs to be vetted and his Libyan problem deserved some coverage, Panetta is currently in a high-ranking position in the Obama administration. In that sense, his India screw-up is more disturbing.

Panetta's incompetence on the job is far worse than Cain's incompetence exposed while vying for position on the Republican ticket.

I hope defense secretary Panetta is keeping an eye on Canada. We need sufficient protection from those Canadians, too. Canada certainly poses as significant a danger to our interests as India does.

Who is watching Alex Trebek?

I don't trust him.

Herman Cain: Libya

When presidential candidate Herman Cain was in Milwaukee yesterday, he met with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board.

The Board is most likely thrilled with its "scoop."

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, in the midst of a Midwestern campaign swing, stumbled badly Monday when attempting to answer a question about whether he agreed or disagreed with President Barack Obama's approach to handling the Libyan crisis.

Meeting with Journal Sentinel reporters and editors before fundraising appearances in Milwaukee and Green Bay, Cain was discussing foreign policy in general when he was asked specifically about Obama's handling of Libya.

Cain paused for some time, then wanted to clarify that Obama had supported the uprising. Clearly struggling to articulate a response, Cain paused again, saying, "Got all of this stuff twirling around in my head."

Finally, Cain said: "I would have done a better job of determining who the opposition is. And I'm sure that our intelligence people had some of that information. Based upon who made up that opposition . . . might have caused me to make some different decisions about how we participated. Secondly, no I did not agree with (Moammar) Gadhafi killing his citizens. Absolutely not. . . . I would have supported many of the things that they did to help stop that."

Cain said the question of America's involvement in Libya was not a simple yes or no question. "I would have gone about assessing the situation differently. It might have caused us to end up in the same place."

Told that a number of Republican leaders had praised Obama for his handling of the situation, Cain said he wasn't criticizing the president, "I just don't think enough was done relative to assessing the opposition before everything exploded."

Here's video of Cain addressing the Libya question:



Oh, my God! Did you see that? He "stumbled badly."

Blah, blah, blah.

The Journal Sentinel brags about its "gotcha" moment:

Cain's answer, which began with a discussion of President George W. Bush's foreign policy before the Libya question came up, was recorded on video and posted as part of a series of unedited excerpts on the Journal Sentinel's online site. Each excerpt pertained to a different topic. The video quickly went viral and was linked to and embedded on a number of political websites around the country, as well as national newspapers and nightly cable and network news broadcasts.

Oh, good grief.

Who cares?

Why is that part of the coverage?

"Yippee! Our video went viral." That's irrelevant.

How unprofessional!

(The video is no "double rainbow guy.")

After the Journal Sentinel interview and a fundraiser in Milwaukee, Cain rode his campaign bus to Green Bay's Lambeau Field. As the bus approached its destination, his spokesman began fielding a flurry of media phone calls about his response to the Libya question.

When a Journal Sentinel reporter riding on the Cain bus asked him about the reaction his interview was getting, Cain responded with a smile and indicated he found the reaction ridiculous.

"I paused to make sure I didn't say something wrong. The fact of the matter is, I didn't. I didn't say anything wrong . . . but the fact I didn't answer immediately - I'm going to be honest with you, that is silly. That is silly!"

Said Cain: "I call it flyspecking every word, every phrase, and now they are flyspecking my pauses, but I guess since they can't legitimately attack my ideas, they will attack word and pauses. I'm kind of flattered that my pauses are so important that somebody wants to make a story out of it."

By the time his bus arrived at his campaign tailgate party at Lambeau, a large media scrum was waiting, and the first question was about the way he handled the question about Libya.

This is really lame.

Considering Obama can't get out a sentence correctly even when he's using his teleprompter, and considering that he is completely lost without it, I don't think it's fair to give so much weight to Cain's less than entirely smooth delivery when answering the Libya question.

If the JS Editorial Board had asked me the same question, I would have said that it's difficult to discuss Obama's approach to the Libya situation because it was so vague.

He supposedly applied the "lead from behind" doctrine.

Ooh! Lead from behind!

In other words, he dithered and stayed out of the way, then he took credit for skillfully removing Gaddafi from power, killing him.

In terms of stumbling badly on foreign policy, Cain's awkward response is nothing compared to Obama's recent remarks about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

From Haaretz:

U.S. President Barack Obama mentioned on Sunday morning the embarrassing gaffe that took place on November 3, when what he thought a private conversation between himself and French President Nicolas Sarkozy was broadcast to reporters.

Obama acknowledged the incident but refused to comment on disparaging remarks he and Sarkozy had made about Prime Minister Netanyahu. “With respect to the ‘hot mic’ in France, I'm not going to comment on conversations that I have with individual leaders,” Obama said in Hawaii.

Unaware that a microphone in the meeting room at the G20 summit at Cannes was on , Sarkozy was heard on November 3 calling Netanyahu "a liar" in what he thought was a private exchange with Obama.

"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, who was also unaware that the mic had been turned on and was being monitored by reporters via the headsets used for simultaneous translations.

Obama didn't exactly defend Netanyahu in that conversation, either. "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama replied, according to wire service reports.

Now that is stumbling badly.

I think the Journal Sentinel's gushing over its "viral video" is also a bad stumble.
____________________

Here's video, from FOX6 News:

 

Voter ID and Racism

Dennis Prager makes the case that the accusation that voter ID is racist demeans blacks.

Prager writes:

While dining out last week, I periodically looked up at one of the television monitors to see the score of the first game of the NBA finals. As there was no sound on to interrupt diners' conversations, the monitor was in caption mode: One could read rather than hear the words spoken. At the conclusion of the game, an announcer was interviewing a member of the victorious Miami Heat players. I saw from the captions the player saying the words "they isn't."

Closed captions display the words spoken. They don't correct for poor grammar.

All I could think was: How can a grown man in America today say "they isn't" rather than "they aren't"?

First, how is it possible for anyone to graduate an American elementary school, not to mention a high school or, most incredibly, attend college, and leave with an inability to conjugate the verb "to be"?

Second, has anyone -- a parent or another relative, a teacher, a friend, a coach -- in that player's life ever corrected his grammar?

I assume that the answer to the second question is "No."

And I assume that the answers to both questions are related: The left, which dominates our culture and educational institutions, has too often lowered standards for black Americans. Even worse, it has declared that if you are black, "they isn't" is not only not to be corrected, but many in academia have declared it an acceptable form of English, i.e., Ebonics, or Black English.

It doesn't end.

I saw "they isn't" the same week the Democrats and others on the left virtually unanimously condemned all Republican attempts in state legislatures to pass legislation requiring voters to show a photo ID. The Democrats labeled it a means of "disenfranchising" blacks. Many Democrats compared it to Jim Crow laws.

"Jim Crow, move over -- the Wisconsin Republicans have taken your place," charged Wisconsin Democratic State Sen. Bob Jauch, referring to his state's new voter ID law.

It is hard to imagine a more demeaning statement about black America than labeling demands that all voters show a photo ID anti-black.

This is easily demonstrated. Imagine if some Democratic politician had announced that demanding a photo ID at the voting booth was an attempt to keep Jewish Americans from voting. No one would understand what the person was talking about. But why not? Jews vote almost as lopsidedly Democrat as do blacks. So why weren't Jews included in liberal objections to voter ID laws?

We all know the answer. Jews are generally considered intelligent and therefore no one would assume that obtaining a photo ID was demanding too much of even poor Jews (yes, there are poor Jews). Therefore, one can only infer that the argument that demanding photo ID for voting will disenfranchise many blacks suggests that many blacks lack the capacity to obtain a photo ID.

If that is not a legitimate inference, then only one other inference is possible: The argument is made solely in order to score political points by portraying black Americans as victims of Republican racism. Of course, that argument simply takes us back to the original question: Why does requiring a photo ID to vote prevent blacks from voting?

It is, however, effective. Calling Republicans racist has worked for half a century and will not be abandoned until it is universally recognized as the libel that it is.

Read more.

Prager does an excellent job of illustrating how ridiculous, as well as offensive, it is to claim that requiring a photo ID to vote is racist.

On a related note, Democrat Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said that photo ID is the GOP's plan to bring back Jim Crow laws.

[I]f you go back to the year 2000, when we had an obvious disaster and - and saw that our voting process needed refinement, and we did that in the America Votes Act and made sure that we could iron out those kinks, now you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally - and very transparently - block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it's nothing short of that blatant.

Talk about over the top rhetoric, from the Dem Party chairwoman no less!

It's unforgivable. Sadly, it's typical Democrat blather.

Wasserman Schultz kind of sort of slightly retracted her statement:

Jim Crow was the wrong analogy to use. But I don't regret calling attention to the efforts in a number of states with Republican dominated legislatures, including Florida, to restrict access to the ballot box for all kinds of voters, but particularly young voters, African Americans and Hispanic Americans.

That's no retraction, even though Ben Smith of Politico wants you to think it is.

Republicans and Jim Crow laws - give me a break!

Bottom line: Measures to prevent voter fraud and assure the integrity of our elections is in the best interest of every American. The only reason to object would be a desire to make it easier to cheat.

That's disenfranchisement.

I guess the Democrats are pro-disenfranchisement.
___________________

UPDATE: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board recommends PHOTO ID to prevent fraud in the FoodShare program.

People using social media such as Facebook and Twitter to buy and sell public food assistance benefits are cheating the vast majority of honest recipients who need help. State officials need to put an end to this practice - and one way to do so is to require photos on the FoodShare Quest card. Emergency cards need some level of security as well.

For some FoodShare users, this may create a hardship, especially for those who are elderly or sick. Those with greater needs should be given the ability to have a family member or friend use their card.

But right now, all anyone who uses a Quest card needs is a four-digit pin number. Those who report their cards lost or stolen and qualify for an emergency card should have to have that card verified by identification as well. Without verification, that card is as good as cash - and in the wrong hands can be sold, used for drugs or traded for alcohol.

RACISTS!

Kloppenburg: Statewide Recount (Video)

Here's the full video of JoAnne Kloppenburg's statement announcing her decision to request that the taxpayers of Wisconsin pay for a recount in her failed election bid against Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser.



Nauseating.

Even the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board takes a surprisingly reasonable stance on Kloppenburg's call to waste the state's resources.

JoAnne Kloppenburg certainly had the right to ask for a statewide recount on Wednesday.

But we had hoped that she wouldn't - and the state would be better off if she hadn't.

We understand the motivation. The final county-by-county canvassing of the state Supreme Court election revealed that Justice David Prosser won a narrow victory, a reflection of how polarizing the new governor and his policies have become. The heat generated by the controversy over those policies most likely spurred the significant turnout for a spring nonpartisan election and a 7,316-vote win for Prosser - less than 0.5% of the 1.5 million votes cast.

That's slim, but it's not likely that a statewide recount will change the outcome. Were it a margin in the hundreds of votes, perhaps, but Kloppenburg has to recognize that it's not.

The state Government Accountability Board says it is ready for a recount; the board had anticipated that one would be requested. But it is already requesting some $40,000 extra to deal with a possible 16 recall elections anticipated as a result of some senators leaving the state to avoid a vote on Gov. Scott Walker's collective bargaining proposals and other senators voting for them.

Earlier, the GAB said a statewide recount in the Supreme Court race might cost as much as $1 million. Given that the state is already scrambling in its current budget to make ends meet and that the next budget won't be any prettier, this is an expense the state can ill afford.

...Kloppenburg might have simply narrowed her recount request to Waukesha County.

But, again, this is her right. We urge the GAB to conduct the recount openly, transparently and in such a fashion that there is no room for doubt. And we urge all the parties involved to allow the GAB to do its job efficiently and without undue interference.

Kloppenburg's decision to burden the state with the cost of what the Journal Sentinel calls an "unnecessary" recount, meaning the Democrats/unions' decision to burden the taxpayers, is utterly irresponsible.

Think of all the ways that money could be better spent.

Kloppenburg's incredibly poor judgment is on display.

It was there when she made her laughable victory speech. Here it is again.

It's unfortunate that Kloppenburg doesn't have the strength of character and the decency to do the right thing.

Having the right to do something doesn't make it right.

Taxpayers of Wisconsin, please join me in a resounding "SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!"

Vote for David Prosser

The race for Supreme Court is a no-brainer.

Justice David Prosser is by far the best candidate. In every capacity, Prosser is JoAnne Kloppenburg's superior. Without question, he deserves to be reelected to the Supreme Court.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board exercised surprisingly good judgment by endorsing Prosser:

David Prosser recently compared the Wisconsin Supreme Court, of which he is a member, to a family. Families have their squabbles, he noted in an interview with WisconsinEye.

True enough, but this "family" does more than squabble. It's close to dysfunctional.

The state Supreme Court is riven with personal dislikes, petty jealousies and wide ideological divides. The court is split 4-3, with self-described judicial conservatives, including Prosser, most often in the majority.

Though Prosser, 68, shares responsibility for the court's divisiveness, we don't believe he is the problem. Prosser has been a capable justice who has shown the ability to work with his ideological opposites when the situation demands. He is a good writer, has an even temperament and is a hard worker. We disagree with him on disciplining of lawyers - he doesn't see major problems with the lax system the state now employs; we do. But this is not enough to disqualify him.

...All the justices share responsibility for decorum, but Prosser is right: The chief does have a special role to play. It's worth noting that fissures on Abrahamson's court are nothing new. Shortly after Prosser joined the court in 1998, a cabal of justices sought to depose Abrahamson, backing her opponent in her re-election race. Prosser supported her and says that over the years he has had a good relationship with her.

We encourage Prosser - and his fellow justices, especially Abrahamson - to repair their differences and focus on interpreting the state constitution fairly and modestly. Leave the sniping for the lunch room.

Kloppenburg, 57, is a strong candidate. She has degrees from Yale and Princeton and a law degree from the University of Wisconsin. She specialized in environmental affairs. But we believe Prosser is the stronger candidate this time.

We recommend that voters return him to the court for another 10-year term.

There's no question that Justice Prosser is a stronger candidate than Kloppenburg.

He has an extremely impressive list of endorsements, including:

Governor Tommy G. Thompson
Gov. Scott McCallum
Lt. Governor Margaret Farrow

Retired Supreme Court Justices:
Justice William Callow
Justice Don Steinmetz
Justice Louis Ceci
Justice Jon Wilcox

Judges:
Hon. Charles Pollex, Adams
Hon. J.D. McKay, Brown
Hon. Donald Zuidmulder-Brown
Hon. Kendall M Kelley, Brown
Hon. Mark Warpinski, Brown
Hon. Don Poppy, Calumet
Hon. Alan White, Columbia
Hon. Patrick Fiedler, Dane
Hon. George Glonek, Douglas
Hon. Kelly Thimm, Douglas
Hon. Leon Stenz, Forest
Hon. Dale English, Fond du Lac
Hon. Peter Grimm, Fond du Lac
Hon. Richard Nuss, Fond du Lac
Hon. Robert Wirtz, Fond du Lac
Hon. James Beer, Green
Hon. Randy Koschnick, Jefferson
Hon. Paul Curran, Juneau
Hon. John Roemer, Juneau
Hon. Chad Kerkman, Kenosha
Hon. Bruce Schroeder, Kenosha
Hon. Wilbur Warren, Kenosha
Hon. Mary Wagner, Kenosha
Hon. Todd Bjerke, LaCrosse
Hon. Scott Horne, LaCrosse
Hon. Fred Karalski, Langlade
Hon. Jay Tlusty, Lincoln
Hon. Tim Duket, Marinette
Hon. James Habech, Shawano
Hon. Carl Ashley, Milwaukee
Hon. William Brash, Milwaukee
Hon. Jane Carroll, Milwaukee
Hon. Dennis Cimpl, Milwaukee
Hon. Jeffrey Conen, Milwaukee
Hon. Pedro Colon, Milwaukee
Hon. Joseph Donald, Milwaukee
Hon. Tim Dugan, Milwaukee
Hon. Clare Fiorenza, Milwaukee
Hon. David Hansher, Milwaukee
Hon. Daniel Konkol, Milwaukee
Hon. Mary Kuhnmuench, Milwaukee
Hon. Kevin Martens, Milwaukee
Hon. Dennis Moroney, Milwaukee
Hon. Daniel Noonan, Milwaukee
Hon. Stephanie Rothstein, Milwaukee
Hon. William Sosnay, Milwaukee
Hon. Francis Wasielewski, Milwaukee
Hon. J.D. Watts, Milwaukee
Hon. Maxine White, Milwaukee
Hon. Jay Conley, Oconto
Hon. Michael Judge, Oconto
Hon. John Desjardins, Outagamie
Hon. Howard Froehlich, Outagamie
Hon. Michael Gage, Outagamie
Hon. Mark McGinnis, Outagamie
Hon. Mitchell Metropulos, Outagamie
Hon. Paul Malloy, Ozaukee
Hon. Sandy Williams, Ozaukee
Hon. Joseph Boles, Pierce
Hon. Dennis Barry, Racine
Hon. Faye Flancher, Racine
Hon. Gerard Ptacek, Racine
Hon. Gene Gasiorkiewicz, Racine
Hon. Edward Lieneweber, Richland
Hon. Daniel Dillon, Rock
Hon. Michael Fitzpatrick, Rock
Hon. James Welker, Rock
Hon. Scott R. Needham, St. Croix
Hon. Patrick Taggart, Sauk
Hon. Robert Kennedy, Walworth
Hon. James Carlson, Walworth
Hon. Todd Martens, Washington
Hon. Michael Bohren, Waukesha
Hon. William Domina, Waukesha
Hon. Donald Hassin, Waukesha
Hon. Lee Dreyfus, Waukesha
Hon. Mac Davis, Waukesha
Hon. Patrick Haughney, Waukesha
Hon. Ralph Ramirez, Waukesha
Hon. Mark Gundrum, Waukesha
Hon. Raymond Huber, Waupaca
Hon. Greg Dutcher, Waushara
Hon. John Jorgensen, Winnebago
Hon. James Mason, Wood
Hon. George Curry, Grant
Hon. James Eaton, Barron (retired)
Hon. Tim Vocke, Oneida (retired)
Hon. Ed Zappen, Wood

Elected Officials:
County Executive Dan Vrakas (Waukesha)
Mayor John Antaramian (Kenosha--former)
Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer (Independent-Manitowoc)
Rep. Tyler August (R-Walworth)
Rep Joan Ballweg (R-Markesan)
Rep. Jeffrey Mursau (R-Crivitz)
Rep. John Murtha (R-Baldwin)
Rep. Stephen Nass (R-Whitewater)
Rep. Lee Nerison (R-Westby)
Rep. Kathy Bernier (R-Chippewa Falls)
Rep. John Nygren (R-Marinette)
Rep. Alvin Ott (R-Forest Junction)
Rep. Garey Bies (R-Sister Bay)
Rep. Jim Ott (R-Mequon)
Rep. Ed Brooks (R-Reedsburg)
Rep. Kevin Petersen (R-Waupaca)
Rep. Jerry Petrowski, Jerry (R-Marathon)
Rep. Warren Petryk (R-Eleva)
Rep. Mike Endsley (R-Sheboygan)
Rep. Paul Farrow (R-Pewaukee)
Rep. Don Pridemore (R-Hartford)
Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Beaver Dam)
Rep. Keith Ripp (R-Lodi)
Rep. Roger Rivard (R-Rice Lake)
Rep. Mark Honadel (R-S. Milwaukee)
Rep. Erik Severson (R-Star Prairie)
Rep. Andre Jacque (R-Green Bay)
Rep. Richard Spanbauer (R-Oshkosh)
Rep. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield)
Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah)
Rep, Samantha Kerkman (R-Powers Lake)
Rep. Jim Steineke (R-Kaukauna)
Rep. Jeff Stone (R-Greenfield)
Rep. Steve Kestell (R-Elkhart Lake)
Rep. Pat Strachota (R-West Bend)
Rep. Joel Kleefisch (R-Oconomowoc)
Rep. Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford)
Rep. John Klenke (R-Green Bay)
Rep. Gary Tauchen (R-Bonduel)
Rep. Joe Knilans (R-Janesville)
Rep. Jeremy Thiesfeldt (R-Fond du Lac)
Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown)
Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Hazelhurst)
Rep. Dean Knudson (R-Hudson)
Rep. Dale Kooyenga (R-Brookfield)
Rep. Travis Tranel (R-Cuba City)
Rep. Bill Kramer (R-Waukesha)
Rep. Scott Krug (R-Wisconsin Rapids)
Rep. Karl Van Roy (R-Green Bay)
Rep. Robin Vos (R-Caledonia)
Rep. Mike Kuglitsch (R-New Berlin)
Rep. Tom Larson (R-Colfax)
Rep. Chad Weininger (R-Green Bay)
Rep. Dan LeMahieu (R-Cascade)
Rep, Mary Williams (R-Medford)
Rep. Michelle Litjens (R-Oshkosh)
Rep. Evan Wynn (R-Whitewater)
Rep. Amy Loudenbeck (R-Clinton)
Rep. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green)
Rep. Dan Meyer (R-Eagle River)
Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills)
Sen. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau)
Sen. Rob Cowles (R-Green Bay)
Sen. Michael Ellis (R-Neenah)
Sen. Pam Galloway (R-Wausau)
Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend)
Sen. Sheila Harsdorf (R-River Falls)
Sen. Randy Hopper (R-Fond du Lac)
Sen. Dan Kapanke (R-La Crosse)
Sen. Neal Kedzie (R-Elkhorn)
Sen. Frank Lasee (R-DePere)
Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin)
Sen. Terry Moulton (R-Chippewa Falls)
Sen. Luther Olsen (R-Ripon)
Sen. Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center)
Sen. Leah Vukmir (R-Wauwatosa)
Sen. Van Wanggaard (R-Racine)
Past-Rep. John Dobyns

Law Enforcement Community
Milwaukee Police Association
Sheriff David Clarke, Milwaukee
Sheriff Dan Trawicki, Waukesha
Sheriff John Gossage, Brown
Sheriff Steve Helgeson, La Crosse
Sheriff Bradley Gehring, Outagamie
Sheriff Christopher Schmaling, Racine
Sheriff Todd Nehls, Dodge
Sheriff Paul Susienkea, Bayfield
Sheriff Jerry Moran, Crawford
Sheriff Mylan Fink, Fond du Lac
Sheriff Dennis Smith, Dunn
Sheriff Jerry Sauve, Marinette
Sheriff John Andrews, Pepin
Sheriff Dean Roland, Burnett
Sheriff Dennis Richards, Columbia
Sheriff Thomas Dalbec, Douglas
Sheriff Mark Podoll, Green Lake
Sheriff James Kowalczyk, Chippewa
Sheriff Ron Cramer, Eau Claire
Sheriff Jeff Rickaby, Florence
Sheriff Keith Glover, Grant
Sheriff Steve Michek, Iowa
Sheriff Brent Oleson, Juneau
Sheriff David Beth, Kenosha
Sheriff Scott Pedley, Lafayette
Sheriff William Greening, Langlade
Sheriff Kim Gaffney, Marquette
Sheriff Phil Malsack, Marquette (former)
Sheriff David Kaminski, Rusk County
Sheriff Michael Jansen, Oconto
Sheriff Maury Straub, Ozaukee
Sheriff Chris Schmaling, Racine
Sheriff Randy Wright, Shawano
Sheriff Dennis Hillstead, St. Croix
Sheriff Gene Carey, Vernon
Sheriff David Graves, Walworth
Sheriff Terry Dryen, Washburn
Sheriff Dale Schmidt, Washington
Sheriff David Peterson, Waushara
Sheriff Michael Brooks, Winnebago
Sheriff Randy Roderick, Green (former)
Sheriff Lewis Rosandisch, Clark (former)
Sheriff James Kanikula, Marinette (former)
Sheriff Randy Stammen, Sauk (former)
Sheriff James Meier, Sawyer (former)
Chief Randy Martin, RIO
DA John Zakowski, Brown
DA Mike Nieskes, Racine
DA Richard Dufor, Marquette
DA Brad Schimel, Waukesha
DA Carrie Schneider, Outagamie
DA Kurt Klomberg, Dodge
DA Daniel Bank, Douglas
DA Gary Luhman, Green
DA Gerald Fox, Jackson
DA Scott Southworth, Juneau
DA Adam Gerol, Ozaukee
DA Gregory Parker, Shawano
DA Eric Johnson, St Croix
DA John Snider, Waupaca
DA Scott Blader, Waushara

Past State Bar Presidents
Gary Bakke, New Richmond
Pamela E. Barker, Appleton
Lawrence J. Bugge, Madison
R. George Burnett, Green Bay
Gregory R. Conway, Green Bay
John R. Decker, Evansville
James D. Ghiardi, Shorewood
Franklyn M. Gimbel, Milwaukee
D. Michael Guerin, Milwaukee
Donald L. Heaney, Madison
Myron E. La Rowe, Reedsburg
Gerald W. Mowris, Madison
Gerald M. O’Brien, Stevens Point
John Skilton, Madison
Thomas S. Sleik, La Crosse
Steven R. Sorenson, Ripon
G. Lane Ware, Wausau

Associations/Groups
Physicians for Responsible Government
Wisconsin Restaurant Association
Wisconin Realtors Association
Wisconsin Builders Association
Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce

Lawmakers, the legal community, and law enforcement all endorse Prosser.

JoAnne Kloppenburg's page of endorsements has lots of names, but they're simply alphabetized, without titles.

That's OK for the phone book, but it's a disorganized way to list endorsements.

For me, this race boils down to experience and judicial philosophy.

Kloppenburg lacks experience. I don't think she's qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

Read about Justice Prosser's experience, in his own words:

Experience Matters -- Prior to my 12 years on the bench, I served 18 years in the legislature, two years as Outagamie County District Attorney, and more than two years in the United States Department of Justice. In these roles, I have created, applied, and interpreted law -- and received high marks for my performance in every capacity.

Judicial Philosophy -- I present myself as a judicial conservative, devoted to the constitution and the rule of law. My job is to find the law and apply it properly, not to make it up to advance some ideological objective.

Judicial Record -- In 12 years, I have participated in more than 900 published Supreme Court decisions and have written opinions in almost every area of law. My record for impartiality and scholarship is well known to people who closely follow the work of the court.

A Supreme Court justice is expected to be an independent decision-maker who makes the correct call in tough cases. I believe I have earned a reputation as a fair and reasonable justice who will apply the law fairly, not legislate from the bench.

This race isn't a referendum on Governor Scott Walker.

It's not about unions and their thuggery.

It's not about the injustice of public employees demanding that middle class taxpayers like me be burdened with paying for my own health care and saving for retirement as well as footing the bill for their benefits.

This is about electing an experienced, qualified justice for the Supreme Court; someone who will interpret the law, not act as a legislator.

I'm not going to vote for an inexperienced, judicial activist like Kloppenburg.

I'm voting for Prosser.

Scott Walker and Olive Branch

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board writes that the Wisconsin State Senate Democrats should return but Governor Scott Walker should offer them an olive branch.

Let's be clear. What Senate Democrats have done in fleeing the state to halt the public's business and jeopardize its precarious finances is not just some harmless parliamentary procedure. It is unethical and constitutes dereliction of duty.

But the question here is not who blinks first; it's who is big enough to make the next move, the first being the unions' concession on benefits.

Republicans have been wrong to try to ram through a deeply flawed bill. But unfortunately, this isn't unusual. Two years ago, it was the Democrats who passed a budget-repair bill on a party-line vote. The bill raised taxes by more than $1 billion.

There was no public hearing; the bill passed the day after it was introduced.

Republicans were livid. But instead of racing off to Rockford, Ill., they stayed in Madison, complained about the way they were treated and then used the tax increase as a bludgeon in last November's election. It worked for them.

Now, Gov. Scott Walker holds the cards - and can find a compromise if he wants to - to bring the Dems back. One idea: Leave in provisions to take benefits off the bargaining table, but strip out other provisions that clearly are aimed at neutering unions. We're talking here about recertification annually, for example. Debate that separately. In other words: Declare victory. We concede that after his faux chat with "David Koch" this week, trust is a problem. But he should try.

"Faux chat"? That's woefully inadequate.

If the Editorial Board really wants to be clear, it should give the details on Ian "F--- the Troops" Murphy. The Board should be clear that David Koch and Koch Industries are Murphy's victims. It should be clear that Murphy is unscrupulous, unethical, a liar, a disgrace.

I agree with the Board that the behavior of the Wisconsin Senate Dems is "unethical and constitutes dereliction of duty."

I don't agree that Walker owes them any cover whatsoever. These AWOL Dems have literally dismissed the will of the people by fleeing.

...Democrats are setting a dangerous precedent that does not bode well for future standoffs. Will the Republicans be the next to bolt if they don't get their way? The Dems have compared their act to a filibuster. It's way beyond that. It's wrong - and their actions have nothing to do with good government.

The Democrats should return.

But Walker should offer an olive branch, too.

In addition to being embarrassed for my home state because of their tantrum, I'm angry. Their obstruction of the democratic process is inexcusable.

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

They don't deserve an olive branch from Scott Walker.

They deserve to be fitted with GPS ankle bracelets when they return. Each one is a flight risk.

'Trash Talking' - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board has decided that linking contemporary politicians to Hitler is over the line.

That specific rhetoric is inappropriate - leave dead fascists out of the discussion.

Apparently, mocking an elected official's cancer, joking about possible side effects from her treatment, and making false and derogatory remarks about her sexual behavior is acceptable.

One might arrive at that conclusion given that the Journal Sentinel has refused to deal with a major controversy that has drawn the attention of the Republican Party of Wisconsin and the American Cancer Society.

In the aftermath of the tragic shootings in Tucson, Paul Krugman, the liberal columnist for The New York Times, wrote:

"Where's that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let's not make a false pretense of balance: It's coming, overwhelmingly, from the right."

Unlike Krugman, we haven't kept score. But we know this much: The trash talking has been coming from both sides. And both sides seem strangely enamored with Adolf Hitler.

Liberals have compared George W. Bush to Hitler, and later called tea partiers fascists. Conservatives have called Barack Obama a socialist and questioned his religion and birthplace. Glenn Beck, on his radio show, urged his listeners to read Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" in the context of a discussion about Obama and health care reform.

And a recent op-ed in The Capital Times of Madison, which also was published on a union website, made a connection between Gov. Scott Walker and fascists.

The authors, Mike Konopacki and Kathy Wilkes, argue that Walker's openness to "decertifying" state employee unions and the expected effort by Republican legislators to pass right-to-work legislation are reminiscent of moves by Hitler and Italian thug Benito Mussolini. A Konopacki cartoon depicted Walker decked out in a storm trooper outfit.

Konopacki and Wilkes defend their work. In an e-mail, Wilkes wrote: "Scott Walker is part of a national effort by the Republican Party to bust unions and demonize public workers. It's an old, worn out tactic based on a lie."

Wrote Konopacki: "I think we made our point clearly and humorously by ridiculing Walker as a petty economic dictator."

But linking Walker with Nazis is offensive and poisons the well of public discourse. This is persuasive how?

...Let's pledge to dig a little deeper into the rhetorical toolkit, past the knee-jerk comparisons to dead fascists, and make thoughtful arguments free of overwrought language. If those arguments are sound and persuasive, that should be enough.

I would like the Journal Sentinel to pledge to "dig a little deeper" and cover the story of Madison talk radio host "Sly" Sylvester mocking and degrading Wisconsin's Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch.

Good grief, the topic is political trash talking and overwrought language.

It's inexcusable for that story to be completely ignored by the Journal Sentinel. Comparisons to Hitler aren't the only examples of toxicity.

The newspaper is intentionally failing to inform the public of a significant story, the Left's disgraceful treatment of Kleefisch. Such silence is a display of tacit approval.

Selective outrage can be very revealing.

Silence can be toxic.

Scott Walker: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Endorsement

Without a doubt, I think Scott Walker should be the next governor of Wisconsin. We simply cannot afford a third term of Jim Doyle via Tom Barrett.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board endorsed Scott Walker.

Is it surprising that the Journal Sentinel, media head cheerleader for Tom Barrett, is backing Walker?

Yes and no.

The editorial praises Barrett and it spells out what the Board views as Walker's weaknesses.

There's a good deal that the Board finds unacceptable about Walker.

While he certainly deserves all the endorsements he receives, I think the Journal Sentinel is playing games.

It has been a reliable and "willing partner" in aiding Barrett attack Walker.

The endorsement doesn't begin to balance out all the negative coverage it has given Walker. It doesn't change the fact that the liberal media were caught working in coordination with the Barrett campaign.

I think the move is a calculated effort to regain some credibility with those of us alienated by the newspaper's liberal bias.

When I heard of the Journal Sentinel's endorsement of Walker, I was thrown. I realized that I really don't trust it.

To the extent that such an endorsement would help Walker get elected, I'm glad about the Board's decision. There is no question whatsoever in my mind that he's the far superior candidate and he should be the next governor.

But naturally, I wonder what's behind the Board's choice considering it is so unfair and so biased and so liberal.

See its explanation for endorsing Russ Feingold over Ron Johnson. It's as if Feingold's campaign wrote it.

The bottom line is I just don't trust the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Maybe tomorrow PolitiFact will examine the editorial endorsing Walker and give it a "Pants on Fire" rating.

Then all would be right with the world again.

Ken Kratz: Resign

UPDATE, September 29, 2010: Embattled DA wasn't candid in statements, board says
________________

UPDATE, September 25, 2010: Fifth woman has complaint about DA
________________

UPDATE, September 23, 2010: Kenosha County DA encouraged woman to go public with Kratz allegation
________________

UPDATE, September 21, 2010: Two more women step forward, accuse Kratz
_______________

UPDATE, September 21, 2010: Woman claims Kratz harassed her as she sought pardon
_______________

UPDATE, September 20, 2010: Doyle ready to begin removal process against DA
_______________

UPDATE, September 20, 2010: Kratz takes medical leave; Length of leave is undetermined
_______________

UPDATE: Ken Kratz statement, September 17, video and transcript
_______________

UPDATE: DA group calls on Kratz to resign

The Wisconsin District Attorneys Association called Friday for Calumet County District Attorney Kenneth R. Kratz to resign over sexually suggestive text messages he sent to a crime victim last year.

In a public letter to Kratz, the association said his actions were "repugnant" and were "neither unintentional nor innocent."

"Your behavior has cast aspersions on our entire profession," says the letter, which was approved by a unanimous resolution of the group's executive committee.

The letter goes on to say that the association's members would fire any of their subordinates who communicated with a crime victim in a similar manner. They also wrote that they would ask Gov. Jim Doyle to determine whether Kratz could be removed from office if he doesn't resign.

Doyle spokesman Adam Collins said Friday that the governor is "very surprised and shocked by these deeply troubling accounts." Doyle will be in contact with Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen "to discuss all options," Collins said.

Short of a resignation, Kratz could be removed from office through a recall election or by the governor.

_________________

Advocates for domestic abuse victims as well as state lawmakers are calling for Ken Kratz to resign.

Harbor House Domestic Abuse Programs, Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault all issued statements saying Kratz acted inappropriately.

Midwest Domestic Violence Resource Center, State Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison, and State Rep. Fred Kessler, D-Milwaukee, say Kratz should resign.

A state lawmaker is calling on Gov. Jim Doyle to remove a Wisconsin prosecutor who sent inappropriate text messages to a domestic abuse victim.

Democratic Rep. Fred Kessler of Milwaukee, a former judge, says Doyle should appoint an investigator to look into Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz's behavior.

If the allegations of sexually harassing text messages to the woman are true, Kessler says Kratz should be removed from office.

FOX 11 Video.


The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board is also calling for Kratz to resign.

The Calumet County district attorney either needs to resign or be recalled after sending sexually suggestive text messages to a domestic violence victim while he was prosecuting the woman's ex-boyfriend.

If he refuses to quit, voters should petition for a recall election to remove him from office. He has proven himself unfit for the job.

...Kevin Potter, administrator of the state's Division of Legal Services, said in an e-mail to state officials last November that Kratz had crossed a line into what could be construed as sexual harassment.

We would go a step further. His text messages were sexual harassment. Kratz victimized the victim.

Kratz said he was embarrassed by "his lapse of judgment." He says the state Office of Lawyer Regulation found no professional misconduct in this case.

If that's true, we disagree with the finding.

Kratz crossed a line. Now, he should resign or be shown the door.

I agree. Kratz should resign.

I would hope Wisconsin would exhibit higher standards and refuse to tolerate the sort of behavior displayed by Kratz rather than brushing it off as being in no criminal or ethical violation.

Wisconsin isn't CBS and Kratz isn't David Letterman.

Burning Qurans and Building a Mosque

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board opposes the planned protest by Terry Jones and his church, the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida. On the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Jones and his group will burn Qurans.

The Board declares that action to be "un-Christian" and "just plain wrong." But it doesn't stop there. The JS Editorial Board goes on to equate Jones' protest with the many Americans opposed to the Ground Zero mosque.

Jones undeniably has a First Amendment right to burn books, holy or otherwise. But, as the saying goes, just because there is a right doesn't make it right. And it doesn't mean a single news camera has to show up.

This burning would be wrong even if no troops were endangered.

Earlier, there was the deep resistance to an Islamic center near ground zero. Why? Well, because it's insensitive and represents caving in to radical Islam, we're told. How is it insensitive? This remains vague. But polling does show lack of support for the center. Which proves, yes, "the people" can be wrong.

This center is insensitive only if one can blame all Muslims for the fanaticism of some Muslims. But by this measure, Jones' actions would constitute good reason for all of Islam to believe the fiction that all Christians hate them. And that, of course, is nonsense. There is a reason Jones has only 50 followers and why the vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists. Bankrupt ideas are hard sells.

Clueless.

The Board declares insensitivity about building a mosque at Ground Zero "remains vague."

No, it doesn't. There's nothing vague about it. It's wrong to give radical Islam another victory. Weren't the murders of 3,000 innocents enough? Why be OK with a mosque so very near to the site of the slaughter? Why not care about the feelings of the surviving victims of 9/11, the loved ones of the dead, and their pain?

There's nothing vague about that.

It would be hateful and intolerant and unconstitutional to ban mosques in the U.S. and prevent all Muslims here from practicing their faith because of the actions of the radicals. That's not happening.

Book burning, even holy book burning, isn't close to being the moral equivalent of committing mass murder on an enormous scale.

The JS Editorial Board fails to grasp the difference, preferring instead to take the example of Jones' intolerance to accuse the people opposed to the Ground Zero mosque as being similarly intolerant and recruiters for radical Islam. That's as wrong as it is cruel.

Disgracefully, the Board has the nerve to rule that burning Qurans AND opposing the Ground Zero mosque is "un-Christian." That's a terribly inflammatory and unfair swipe.

Moreover, since when did the Board become concerned with the Christian thing to do?

It has shown such a lack of respect for Christianity, in particular, the Catholic Church, so frequently blaming the Church for the sins/crimes of a very few.

...The pastor, having already confirmed the false suspicions of many Muslims with his intentions, should reconsider. It would be the Christian thing to do.

Why would Jones reconsider when he's being given so much attention? He's feeding off the publicity and enjoying the power the media and government and military officials continue to give to this little man.

I suspect that dramatically more Bibles and American flags are burned in protest in this country and around the world every day than what Jones and his minuscule group of followers intend to set aflame on Saturday.

One more thing--

Isn't it twisted that the JS Editorial Board, defender of free speech, is exhibiting concern regarding Jones' protest endangering our troops when it has its own lengthy record of taking positions that have done exactly that?

The same goes for Obama.

Bottom line: This editorial lacks focus and consistency and sense.

Divorce: Paul Bucher and Jessica McBride

UPDATE, November 19, 2009:

WAUKESHA - Former Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher has filed again for divorce from his wife, Jessica McBride.

Bucher told The Freeman on Wednesday that he’d learned that Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn had continued to contact his wife as recently as Sept. 14, and he believes Flynn should be held accountable for it. McBride and Flynn were reported to have engaged in an extramarital affair earlier this year.

McBride, 39, is an educator at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, a blogger and a columnist for The Freeman. She declined to comment on the matter Wednesday.

Repeated messages left with the Milwaukee Police Department seeking comment from Flynn were not returned Wednesday.

________________

I find it disturbing that some are gleefully writing about Paul Bucher filing for divorce from Jessica McBride.

Dan Bice, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, doesn't exactly handle the news with much sensitivity either.

First, there was the headline-grabbing and unexpected affair. Now comes the not-so-surprising divorce filing.

Late Thursday, former Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher filed for divorce from journalist and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee instructor Jessica McBride.

Bucher, an unsuccessful candidate for state attorney general in 2006, is asking for primary physical placement - but joint custody - of their 4-year-old daughter. Bucher - now a partner with the small Waukesha firm Gatzke, Ruppelt, and Bucher - is also requesting child support and maintenance from McBride.

...The filing comes a little more than three months after Police Chief Edward Flynn, 61, apologized publicly for having an extramarital affair. He didn't identify McBride, 39, but No Quarter obtained love letters and e-mails between the two.

...Since issuing his apology in June, Flynn has been seen frequently around the city with his wife, Susan, who didn't move from her Virginia residence when he took the Milwaukee job last year.

For Bucher, this is his second marriage; it is McBride's first. The divorce filing says the pair has a pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreement, but neither was included in the file.

Isn't there some way that Bice can get details about the pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements?

I'm sure he's trying to hunt down some more information. Maybe Bice will cover another angle. Maybe he'll go after Bucher and McBride's 4-year-old daughter. Perhaps he'll chronicle her side of the story, get her to talk about her experience.

In any event, Bice can't be finished yet. He seems to relish his role as a sleazy tabloid reporter.

I wonder if Bice has any more leads he's pursuing. I wonder if he's harassing other families. He certainly appears to have had fun in this case.

Bice has not handled this matter professionally. His columns and posts on it have been oddly personal, straying from the standards of providing a "just the facts" objectivity.

In his reporting, Bice frequently refers to the "glowing profile" McBride wrote about Flynn for Milwaukee Magazine.

Does Bice realize that through his coverage, he's actually been writing a profile of himself?

I wouldn't call what Bice has revealed about himself to be very glowing.

Some truly vile comments related to the divorce filing are posted on Bice's blog:

Examples:

Chuck Cunningham
Friday Sep 25, 2009 11:04 AM

who else is laughing?
________________

StevenR Report
Friday Sep 25, 2009 11:15 AM

Me. Defense of marriage? Make me PUKE.

Not even WOMEN in the GOP can keep it in their pants. Could the Republicans POSSIBLY be more HYPOCRITICAL? A loving pair of homosexuals defends marriage MUCH BETTER than this disgusting threesome.
________________

URKiddingMe
Friday Sep 25, 2009 11:47 AM

So Jess is back on the market......????

I mean, I'm not involved in law enforcement or the criminal justice system, but I did once make a citizen's arrest. That's gotta be good for a little ????? behind some Water Street bar, right?
________________

djlresearch
Friday Sep 25, 2009 2:44 PM

Ms McBride has now broken up both of Mr. Bucher's marriages. Imagine going on a date with her? Who will she go after next? David Clarke? Scot Walker?

Poor Paul, he's make some judgement mistakes. First he procsecutes a Packer. That's a no win move. Then he hops in the sack with Little Miss Flirty. Both big gambles that did not pay off.

I've got two divorces under my belt myself. Not throwing any stones.

The first Mrs. Bucher -- nice lady. Lots of class. She's probably grinning.
________________

Cnote
Saturday Sep 26, 2009 10:47 AM

I totally agree with this statement- Haha!!-Not even WOMEN in the GOP can keep it in their pants. Could the Republicans POSSIBLY be more HYPOCRITICAL? A loving pair of homosexuals defends marriage MUCH BETTER than this disgusting threesome.
HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!!

This is really sick stuff.

I think it's inappropriate for the Journal Sentinel to have these degrading remarks on its website. Some policy changes may be in order.

Would the JS print these statements if they were sent to the newspaper as letters to the editor?

Maybe it would, but the cowards that spew this crap probably wouldn't be willing to have their real names attached to it.

I wonder if Bice is responsible for moderating the comments section on his blog. If so, he should show better judgment.

Herb Kohl: Aging

Herb Kohl has a column in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel today.

The Journal Sentinel Editorial Board asked members of Wisconsin's congressional delegation to write brief essays explaining what needs to be done about the coming fiscal problems posed by entitlement spending - and what they are prepared to do to lead in this effort.

Kohl writes:

As chairman of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, I see firsthand the critical roles played by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the lives of older Americans.

Kohl goes on to push for greater government control over the lives of individuals. He rambles about the work he's doing to lower the cost of drugs.

He believes that his efforts will mean an improvement in health care for every American.

That of course is crap.

It's so strange for Kohl to allegedly write something for the newspaper. He does so little, but how could he turn down the JS without looking completely disinterested? He had to submit something. Still, it was so unusual. Kohl usually stays in the shadows.

He did participate in the Circus Parade yesterday, riding in a horse-drawn carriage with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and his wife. At the last minute, Kohl decided to take part in the parade though he had declined an earlier invitation.

It was weird that Barrett and his wife were wearing period costumes and Kohl was sitting there in his Bucks cap.

When he got out and walked some of the route, he looked like a parade viewer who had wandered off the curb and became separated from family members.

He was frighteningly pale. I hope he wore lots of sunscreen. He really looked hunched over, frail and old.




__________________

Here's Senator Kohl's Opening Statement on the Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

JS Editorial Board: About Closing the Mexican Border

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board thinks that closing the U.S. border with Mexico in response to the health emergency is "simply nonsense."

One can argue for and against taking that measure to control the swine flu outbreak.

I'm not at all surprised that the Editorial Board would be on board with Obama. I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

That said, there are some disturbing and very unfair accusations in the editorial; and they have nothing to do with a serious discussion of the flu outbreak.

The actions of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as the governor and other state and local health officials seem measured and prudent.

This is not the case in other quarters, where common sense has become a casualty to political expediency. Anti-immigration groups and some of their apologists in Congress are pushing Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to close border crossings with Mexico.

Never mind that doing so would upend the robust trade between the two countries at a time of great peril for both economies. Never mind that WHO officials say containment isn't feasible, since the disease long since has leaped borders around the world. And never mind that even if it was possible to close the border, the effort would drain resources from efforts to mitigate the disease.

I've supported taking measures to keep ill people from Mexico, the epicenter of the outbreak, from entering the U.S. to spread the virus.

No political agenda is influencing my opinion. My view has nothing to do with political expediency. There's nothing sinister about it.

Moreover, I'm not a member of any "anti-immigration" group. I'm pro-immigration. My ancestors were immigrants. They came with nothing and made a better life for themselves. They arrived in the country legally and asked for nothing from the government. They just wanted freedom and opportunity; and they found it.

My concern about the spread of the disease has nothing to do with ILLEGAL immigration or LEGAL immigration. It has everything to do with public health.

If the swine flu were rampant in Canada, I would want our northern border closed. It's as simple as that.

The Obama administration has been floundering badly on its handling of the crisis. There are mixed messages coming from Obama and Janet Napolitano and Joe Biden and others. They don't seem to be in control of the situation. That's very unsettling.

When Matt Lauer interviewed Joe Biden on Thursday morning, the topic was "Swine Flu Outbreak: Is U.S. Doing Enough to Stop Spread?"

Lauer raised some legitimate questions, and I don't think the Editorial Board would call Lauer "anti-immigrant."

MATT LAUER: Last night the president said, no plans to shut down the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, no plans even to curtail commercial air traffic or travel between the two countries. And I think some people this morning, Mr. Vice President, may be shaking their heads not understanding that. Help me out.

Biden then repeated the same lame lines that we've been getting from Obama and the government, that it won't do any good at all to close borders. Lauer pressed Biden on the matter.

LAUER: Let's just talk as non-experts then, you and me. It seems the president used the analogy 'the horse and the barn.' You know, you don't close the barn door after the horse has left. But when the horse leaves the barn, there aren't thousands and thousands of other horses waiting to stream out of the barn door. This is more like a water main break. It floods basements. You close down those houses and you clean them up, but wouldn't you also go back and turn off the water in that water main so it doesn't continue to flood other neighborhoods?

Biden blew Lauer's argument off by saying the analogy wasn't "appropriate."

Biden then went on to deliver his major gaffe, to say what we were later told by Robert Gibbs and Janet Napolitano that Biden didn't mean to say -- don't fly or ride subways. Stay away from mass transit.

The point is Lauer wasn't trying to trip up Biden. He's definitely Obama administration-friendly.

Nevertheless, Lauer argued in favor of closing borders as a legitimate consideration to attempt to mitigate the illness. Taking that stand isn't being "anti-immigrant" or playing politics.

I object to the JS Editorial Board ripping individuals concerned about the public health by accusing them of having a not so hidden, "anti-immigrant" agenda.

It's a cheap shot.

The theory of closing schools to stop the spread of swine flu is no different than closing the borders. It's also a form of mitigation.

The Board is in favor of closing more schools to halt the virus. The reason is to keep sick people from infecting healthy ones.

Granted it's on a much smaller scale with schools, but the goal is the same.

With the borders, the idea is to prevent more sick people from Mexico from coming into the U.S. and exposing healthy Americans to the swine flu.

That's not "simply nonsense."

It's quarantining.

Of Beer and Taxes and the Dead Tree JS

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board strikes again.

Political non-starter? This makes no sense

It is a matter of government malpractice not to look at increasing alcohol taxes as the state is burdened with the costs of alcohol abuse and the state budget deficit looms so large.

Let's examine an alleged "political non-starter."

The state has a $5.7 billion budget deficit.

The state's tax on beer - at $2 per barrel, or 6.5 cents per gallon - is the third-lowest in the nation and hasn't been raised in 40 years.

Clueless.

I think Wisconsin's low beer tax has something to do with fostering the beer industry in Wisconsin.

MISSOURI'S beer tax is lower than the tax in Wisconsin.

Anheuser-Busch, the leading American brewer, is based in St. Louis, Missouri.

What a coinkydink!

This is just like the JS Editorial Board.

"What can we do to burden Wisconsin businesses?"

...it is a long established and accepted concept here and elsewhere that users should pay for services directed their way or to defray costs they create. For instance, fees from hunters and fishermen go to wildlife efforts. License and auto registration fees help out the Division of Motor Vehicles. Gas taxes, when they aren't poached, go toward roads.

There is absolutely no reason that increased taxes on alcohol shouldn't be directed to the undeniably huge costs alcohol abuse imposes on society. And if this, too, is poached, anyone want to argue that the budget can't use the help?

So why is this a political non-starter for virtually everyone from Gov. Jim Doyle on down?

Their fears are based on a false premise. The theory goes this way: Because of Wisconsin's tradition as a brewing state and its storied culture of drinking, raising the beer tax in particular is tantamount to political suicide. Wisconsinites would rise as one to unelect the latter-day prohibitionists.

This notion does Wisconsinites a huge disservice.

Properly explained and with funds earmarked, increased beer and other alcoholic beverage taxes would be accepted as having little impact on consumers' wallets but huge benefits for the state's revenue and health picture. And this could withstand predictable alcohol and tavern industry assaults.

OK.

I'll run with the Board's thinking.

I propose a newspaper tax.

Users of the Dead Tree version of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and other Wisconsin newspapers should be taxed. It would have little impact on consumers' wallets but would yield at least some benefits, albeit quite meager, for the state's revenue picture.

Moreover, it would address the environmental concerns of publishing on paper and delivery of the product. Shrinking the carbon footprint is good for the state's health picture.

The Board declares, "The state's culture of drinking is real."

The state's culture of using paper is real, too.

I think the state should raise taxes on newspapers and direct the money to environmental-related purposes.

Is that proposal a "non-starter" for the Journal Sentinel Editorial Board?

Coming out in favor of a newspaper tax would be the right thing to do, a profile in courage.

JS Editorial: Obama, Stem Cell Research, and the False Choice

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board is regurgitating the same lib drivel heard from Democrats and the national media on Barack Obama's executive order to use more taxpayer dollars for EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

The Board calls it a "step forward."

The debate long has been emotionally charged, but Obama said Monday that the Bush administration had forced a false choice on the country between science and faith: "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering."

Obama's decision could boost stem cell research in Wisconsin, where limitations on federal funding have made it harder for the state to compete with California, which has poured billions of dollars of unrestricted state money into research.

In signing the order, Obama has taken an important step to allow science to proceed - and to insulate it from politics.

This is ridiculous.

Supposedly, the Bush administration "forced a false choice on the country between science and faith."

Apparently, the Board believes that Obama, a self-proclaimed "person of faith," is not forcing a false choice. Why should Obama's belief on the morality of destroying human life for research be considered divine revelation?

Obama's faith-filled decision is being forced on the country just as surely as Bush's was. What's the difference?

It's wrong to say that President Bush didn't allow science to proceed. He fully supported pursuing stem cell research and dramatic progress in the field was made during his administration.

What the Board and others fail to note is that there were no government restrictions on any sort of stem cell research. This has always been about the amount of FEDERAL FUNDING for embryonic stem cell research. There was no ban on the research. The private sector has always been free to fund it.

Talk about falsehoods!

Science doesn't need government to proceed.

It's BS to say that Obama's executive order now insulates science from politics. Obama's move was just as political as anything President Bush did in regard to embryonic stem cell research.

The difference between the two is that President Bush's politics prevented the increase of federal funds used to destroy human life for scientific experimentation whereas Obama's politics provides tax dollars to fund the destruction of human life in scientific research that takes place in a moral vacuum.

Denise Revels Robinson

Crocker Stephenson of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has been covering the story of the death of Christopher Thomas Jr.

The father of four writes that little Christopher's murder is not an abstraction to him.

A small child's vulnerability is not an abstraction to me. A small child's trust is not an abstraction. A small child's innocent and helpless love is not an abstraction.

Christopher, whose unbreathing chest I touched as he lay in his child-sized casket, is not an abstraction.

It was all too easy, as I read the medical examiner's report and the criminal complaint charging the siblings' aunt/foster mother with their calamity, to imagine the suffering these children endured.

To read such things is to break one's heart.

And though it is a reporter's task is to be objective, I believe objectivity is a discipline; I believe a disciplined reporter can write objectively about atrocities and feel - as I felt as I wrote my initial stories about Christopher and his sister - outrage.

I still feel outrage.

Readers feel it, too.

Few stories in my career have generated as many e-mails, phone calls and letters.

Most people want to express their sorrow and pain.

Many, many readers want to tell me their own nightmarish stories about Wisconsin's child welfare system.

And just about everyone wants to know who in the child welfare system will be held accountable for what happened to Christopher and his sister.

Denise Revels Robinson is the director of the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare, the agency responsible for placing and monitoring Christopher and his sister in the home where she suffered and he died.

I've never had the pleasure of talking to Robinson. Not for lack of trying.

A public servant whose salary is paid by you and me, she has yet to see fit to return our calls.

That ticks me off.

...Her secretary no longer even bothers to take my messages.

I do not understand how the director of the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare can have a baby beaten to death and a toddler tortured and not feel an obligation to appear in public to express her pain, to extend her condolences, to explain what happened and what she is going to do about it.

But as a father and as a journalist, I will do my best to find this out.

This and other questions raised by Christopher Thomas' death.

Nearly a month ago, shortly after Christopher was murdered, I wrote:

People who are aware of this story are extremely upset, for now. There is outrage, but will the cries be loud enough and will they be sustained enough to bring about real change in a system that did not look out for the best interests of the children?

I'm afraid the case will be forgotten. Another story will replace this one and community outrage will shift to the latest ghastly news.

I hope that's not the way this plays out.

I hope that disgust over the death of Christopher and the torture of his sister will mean change in the system so that it will effectively prevent other children from experiencing similar suffering.

I'm confident that the outrage over what was allowed to happen to Christopher, an innocent 13-month-old, will not ebb.

Yesterday, a small group of protesters gatherered at the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare demanding answers.

Crocker Stephenson reports:

The handful of protesters who stood outside the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare on Wednesday morning carried posters demanding that foster children be protected and that those responsible for their safety be held accountable. Rob Whitman did not carry a poster. What he carried instead were the cremated remains of his 2-month-old son.

Whitman's son - named Robert but whom Whitman calls "Junior" - died Oct. 2, two days after the baby was removed from his home and placed in foster care.

"Two days," Whitman said.

Whitman, 37, had taken a bus from his south side apartment to the protest in front of the bureau's S. 13th St. office. He had 36 cents in his pocket. That was, he said, all the money he had left.

In his right arm, Whitman held a ceramic angel. The angel contained Junior's ashes. Less than an ounce worth, Whitman said.

In his right arm, he held a teddy bear that had belonged to Junior. He had dressed the bear in Junior's clothes. He held the bear the way one might hold a living, breathing infant child.

Whitman stood with the protesters for about a half-hour. The demonstration had been organized to decry the death of Christopher L. Thomas Jr., the 13-month-old whom police say was beaten to death last month by his foster mother and whose sister suffered months of torture, even as child welfare caseworkers periodically visited the home.

...When Whitman got home from the protest, [Valissa Reynolds] was tacking sheets in front of the windows to keep out the cold. He placed Junior's ashes and his bear in Junior's crib, which has been turned into a kind of shrine: Pictures, clothes, a diaper, a blanket, the sweat shirt Whitman was wearing when Junior was removed.

The reason for the sweat shirt, Whitman said: "I believe I can still smell him in it."

This is another heartbreaking story.

What makes the stories of the innocent little victims of the foster care system so unbearable is that the heartbreak is preventable.

There is no excuse for a bureau supposedly functioning to oversee the protection of children to be unaccountable for its catastrophic failures.

There must be accountability.

I trust that Stephenson will not give up.

He will demand answers from Denise Revels Robinson and the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare.

It is mind-boggling to me that she has been completely unwilling to publicly address the torture and murder of little Christopher.

Stephenson is doing the community a great service. Hopefully, his persistence will save other children from suffering Christopher's fate and his efforts will spare parents the pain that Rob Whitman and Valissa Reynolds know.

And hopefully, the families and the loving foster parents of the children eventually tortured and murdered in foster care will find some peace.
_____________

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board: A deafening silence: Stonewalling in the tragic death of a boy is bad enough, but some of the child welfare bureau's actions seem plain bizarre.

Milwaukee's Sales Tax Increase

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board declares that the "People have spoken."

They've said, "Raise my taxes. Take my money, please!"

Milwaukee County Board Chairman Lee Holloway is right: The voters have spoken. And what they've said is they're willing to pay a little extra in sales taxes to preserve their parks, to make sure the buses keep running and to retain quality emergency medical services.

"A little extra"?

It's not a little. It adds up.

Now it's up to the Legislature to give the county the authority to levy that tax and to make sure it is used for those purposes.

In a news release issued Wednesday, Holloway pointed out that "the support for this objective was so strong that the referendum was still approved despite a slowing economy." In fact, one could argue that on that referendum and others, and by whom voters sent to represent them in Madison, a majority of voters sent the signal that they're willing to pay for things that matter to them.

It's up to the County Board and to a Democratic majority in Madison to make sure things are done right. And it's up to Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker to get out of the way of the will of the voters.

Oh, I see. This really was a referendum on Scott Walker.

The Board instructs him to "get out of the way of the will of the voters."

...As Holloway said in his release, the people have spoken. It's time to move forward.

I wonder how many of the voters misread the referendum.

It was intentionally worded to be confusing.

How many voters understood what it meant? How many knew they were voting for a tax increase that is sure to hurt themselves as well as businesses, especially those on the county lines?

You'd have to be crazy to buy a car or some other big-ticket item in Milwaukee County when you can save a sizable amount by slipping into a neighboring county to make the purchase.

What really is the will of the voters?

I find it hard to believe that Milwaukeeans voted to raise their taxes while voting for Barack Obama's plan to spread the wealth around, with at least some expecting their savior Obama to force the wealthy to pick up the tab for their mortgage and gas bills.

Scott Walker doesn't need to get out of the way, though citizens should beware of the stampede out of Milwaukee County to neighboring countries to make purchases.

They might want to step aside to avoid getting trampled.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Endorses Obama

SHOCKER: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board endorses Barack Obama!

Did you see that one coming?

The Board's case for Obama seems so familiar. Where have I read its arguments?

Oh, yes -- They're the same ones being disseminated by Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and other Leftist outlets like NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

Today, McCain's maverick image stands badly tarnished. In the 2004 election, they called what McCain has done in this election flip-flopping. Today, we don't know which McCain the country would be getting as president, the maverick of 2000 or the panderer of 2008.

Is he the one who rejected President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy or the one who now embraces them? The one who sponsored comprehensive immigration reform or the one who says he wouldn't vote for that bill today? The one who experienced torture as a POW and pushed back against a president who would allow it or the candidate who voted against interrogations done humanely by the book?

And he also has squandered his claim to one of his supposed assets - his experience, as a military man and member of Congress for 26 years. Simply, he has displayed deplorable judgment in key instances that call into question the value of his overall judgment.

In Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 72-year-old candidate with a history of melanoma picked a woefully unqualified running mate - as she continues to prove day after day. And both he and she have conducted a campaign that has careened from inept to offensive.

In Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Obama picked a vice president with foreign policy credentials to serve in the event of tragedy, not just a running mate to score political points.

The non-issue of William Ayers has become a centerpiece of McCain's campaign while Palin talks as if the only real Americans live in red-state small towns (something she was forced to apologize for) and falsely smears Obama for "palling around with terrorists."

Obama's campaign has not been above misleading voters - on McCain's stances on Social Security and immigration, for instance. But on this matter of unseemly campaigning, McCain's - starting with the Paris Hilton/Britney Spears ad - is clearly over the top.

Will either candidate be able to afford what he proposes? No. But in their plans, we see their inclinations, and Obama's are better. We are so weary of all this rhetoric about government as Public Enemy No. 1 - until there's a private sector to bail out - and how "spreading the wealth" denotes some sinister socialist agenda.

McCain's political career has been marked by selective instances of bucking partisanship - on campaign finance reform law that bears his name and on comprehensive immigration reform. But these last years also have been consistently marked by political hand-holding with Bush.

It is Obama, in his first term as a U.S. senator, who offers the freshest face of change. He, more than McCain, offers the best chance for instilling in Americans a new sense of unity and purpose and restoring the image abroad of an America as worthy as its ideals.

The Board says the McCain-Palin campaign has careened from inept to offensive in the same paragraph that it blasts McCain as the "72-year-old candidate with a history of melanoma" for choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a "woefully unqualified running mate."

McCain's going to die and Palin is a bubblehead -- nothing offensive about that.

(I think the Board lifted those words from political genius Matt Damon.)

The Board writes, "We are so weary of all this rhetoric about government as Public Enemy No. 1 - until there's a private sector to bail out - and how 'spreading the wealth' denotes some sinister socialist agenda."

Yes, that tired, old rhetoric about capitalism and free enterprise and opportunity and personal freedom is such a pain.

As Ronald Reagan said, "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem." Of course, the Leftists on the Editorial Board don't see it that way. Government is the solution.

Naturally, the Board mocks the notion of Obama's "sinister socialist agenda," because it finds nothing sinister about "spreading the wealth around." Spreading the wealth around is good. Individual achievement is to be punished, not praised.

Another Reagan quote comes to mind: "How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an Anti-communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

Oppression Obama-style is easy for the Board to swallow.

In the end, the Board endorses Obama because it's looking for change. It believes, "It is Obama, in his first term as a U.S. senator, who offers the freshest face of change."

Sure. That's just what we need now -- an inexperienced, untested, teleprompter president.

The Board actually believes that a first term senator is preferable to a man who has spent his life serving his country, in the military and in the U.S. House and Senate.

We want the "freshest face."

Are we choosing a leader or a new leading man for a sappy chick flick?

Why does Obama's fresh face offer the best chance for instilling in Americans a new sense of unity and purpose?

I think the Board really means to say that Obama's fresh face offers the best chance for instilling in Americans a new sense of entitlement and subservience to the state. There's unity in oppression I guess.

Don't worry if the Journal Sentinel's crush on Obama doesn't convince you that he should be the next president.

Ricardo Pimentel, the Editorial Page Editor, grants readers permission to disagree. What a guy!

We know that some of you would prefer we didn't recommend in the presidential race or in any race. Some view it as an unwelcome intrusion in a private decision. Others, we've found, simply want their newspaper's Editorial Board to agree with them on important topics.

But we can't - not all the time and not with everyone. For us, it's about our obligation as an Editorial Board in a free society to encourage community discussion.

And you, of course, are free to disregard our recommendation.

We're free to disregard the recommendation of the Editorial Board?

Really? We aren't obligated to do as the wise Pimentel suggests?

We're allowed to disagree?

Good. Our freedom to openly express a dissenting opinion hasn't been squashed yet, though the wrath of Obama is to be feared.

Ask the well known racists Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.

Talk to Stanley Kurtz.