Sad State Of Affairs In Wisconsin State Assembly
I just happened to be near the floor of the Wisconsin State Assembly one afternoon in the early 1990′s when Green Bay Representative Mary Lou Van Dreel stood to ask for recognition from the Speaker. There is a tradition when constituents are seated in the gallery for them to be introduced by their representative.
Looking up into the gallery Van Dreel loudly and warmly introduced ‘Harry Butz” to the chambers. A burst of laughter went up from the legislators, and though I did not see Van Dreel’s face, I am sure in a moment she was smiling too at the prank that had been played on her.
Those were the days when civility and good-natured antics were the rule, and over-the-top bombast was infrequent. Back then tempers did flare, and tough words landed on members of the other side of the aisle, but there were boundaries which for good reason were not crossed.
Today the opposite is the case as evidenced by the moronic outbursts in the State Assembly on Thursday when the mining bill was debated on the floor.
While the bill was contentious, and one that I would argue does not have solid environmental protections, the outbursts and foul language used by protesters in the gallery to make their point was totally out-of-bounds. The wholy inappropriate cursing at Republicans, draping of a banner, and the pounding on assembly doors made the whole lot of them more buffoons than serious-minded citizens.
Something very unhealthy to democracy has been unleashed at the Capitol over the past year, and unless it is reined in it only has the potential to become more unwieldy and perhaps even dangerous. What we are witnessing has nothing to do with free speech, but instead is just boorish behavior that makes everyone look bad.
It is not just the protestors who are to blame, but also legislators who really must conduct themselves in a fashion that underscores the responsibilities they shoulder.
While I am very opposed to Governor Scott Walker and his position on collective bargaining I am also very troubled with the antics of Representative Mark Pocan. The Madison Democrat put a large anti-Walker banner in his office window at the Statehouse to make a political statement. There is no way that is acceptable, unless some very tight rules were modified since I worked in the assembly. I strongly suspect they were not, and this is but one more example of bad form in highly-charged times.
There is a time for frothy debate and hard-nosed political campaigning. But far more often under the dome there should be level-headed civility and unity when serving in what is a most impressive building, and (in theory) a most distinguished legislative body.
Maybe someone needs to introduce ‘Mr. Ben Dover’ in the gallery, and come to understand that the way things are going in Wisconsin is not good for anyone from either party.
Newt Gingrich’s Moon Base Idea Is Bold And Correct
I must say if there was any reason to vote for Newt Gingrich–any reason at all–it would be due to the issues involving space travel.
I have always felt the best of America happens when we stand together for a dream yet to be realized. Landing a man on the moon was such a time in this country, and Lord knows, with all the divisions that plague us, we are in need of another unifying effort.
So when I heard about New Gingrich’s plans to have a base on the moon I did not laugh. I think it a splendid idea, and one that matches the American appetite for big, bold, brassy ‘can-do’ projects. Many have laughed or derided the idea presented by Gingrich, and that I find small-minded. Reaching up and out while exploring has always been mankind’s mission, and there is no reason to back-track today.
Yes, Newt Gingrich has many, many reasons he should never be elected president. But when it comes to thinking about space in the way it needs to be considered Gingrich is spot on.
I am only sad there are not more candidates willing or able to talk about science and space travel in the way it needs to be dealt with.
Two staffers who worked directly for Gov. Scott Walker while he was county executive were charged Thursday with illegally doing extensive political work while being paid by taxpayers to do county jobs.
In addition, prosecutors allege some Walker aides communicated using a private email network that was kept secret from other county workers. The Walker staffers conducted some official county business on that system, but the complaint says those emails were not released to those making open records requests.
Kelly Rindfleisch, deputy chief of staff to Walker in 2010, faces four felony counts of misconduct in office for working for then-Rep. Brett Davis’ 2010 campaign for lieutenant governor while on the county clock. Davis, who lost in the Republican primary, is now Walker’s state Medicaid director.
The complaint says that Rindfleisch told a friend in an Internet chat shortly after taking the job with Walker that “half of what I’m doing is policy for the campaign.” During work hours between February 2010 and early July 2010, it says, Rindfleisch sent sent more than 300 emails to Davis and some 1,380 fundraising emails.
Also charged Thursday was Darlene Wink, Walker’s one-time constituent services coordinator, who is facing two misdemeanor counts for using county resources to raise money for Walker’s 2010 gubernatorial bid.
Matt Drudge Bombs Newt Gingrich–Many Worry About Former Speaker’s Possible Nomination
Following the press stories coming out of Florida the past few days has made me wonder just where the bottom is when it comes to tactics in the Republican primary. I think we have to wait for a while to find the new low point.
Matt Drudge, a bottom-feeder, has entered the fray and is using his site to bore down heavy on the former scandal-ridden Speaker of the House.
There is blood in the waters of Florida.
Elliot Abrams wrote an article in the National Review that scores at least two touchdowns for those seeking to stop Gingrich. Abrams’ writes that Gingrich talked down President Reagan and his policies.
Drudge is all over the story like glitter on a sweaty hooker.
In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich. “I worked with President Reaganto change things in Washington,” “we helped defeat the Soviet empire,” and “I helped lead the effort to defeat Communism in the Congress” are typical claims by the former speaker of the House.
The claims are misleading at best. As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.
President Obama Gains In WSJ Poll, Stronger Economy The Reason
This is the type of trend that many Democrats were hoping for, and many (in spite of the naysayers) expected.
Partial results from the poll, released Wednesday, found voters feeling more positively about the economy and of Mr. Obama’s handling of it. Some 30% believed the country was headed in the right direction, up eight percentage points from a month ago. Some 60% said the country was on the wrong track, down from 69% in December and from 74% in October. The question is considered an important measure of voters’ mood.
For the first time in seven months, the poll found that more people approve of Mr. Obama’s job performance than disapprove, 48% to 46%. Some 45% said they approve of his handling of the economy—up six points from mid-December.
“Republicans had better bring their A game to the election in November, as today’s results are a reminder that as attitudes about the economy improve, so does President Obama’s standing,” said Bill McInturff, a GOP pollster who conducts the Wall Street Journal survey with Democratic pollster Peter Hart.
“The president still has a very long road ahead of him, but for the first time in a long time he finds that he has the wind at his back,” Mr. Hart said.
Justice Michael Gableman Taken To Woodshed By The New York Times
Had the editorial in The New York Times today been like the cartoons from my childhood there might have been a balloon space for text with the words “POW” and “BAM” over the image of a red-faced Justice Michael Gableman. The ethically challenged jurist was taken to task today in the paper, and the message was clear. Justice Gableman is an embarrassment to Wisconsin. The sad fact remains that Gableman seems unable to see the lack of credibility he brings to the bench, or the shame he casts on this state.
This is not Justice Gableman’s first ethical breach. He won his seat in 2008 in a foul campaign against the Supreme Court’s only African-American, Louis Butler. Justice Gableman accusedMr. Butler of having worked as a public defender “to put criminals on the street,” including by finding “a loophole” to release a girl’s rapist.
In addition to playing to the fear and racism of some voters, the charge was false. The offender served his full sentence. In 2010, the Wisconsin court considered whether to sanction him under the state judicial code and split along the same ideological lines in a 3-to-3 vote without his. That meant he could not be disciplined for lying.
Now the justice claims it would be wrong for him to recuse himself because of “partisan demands.” The prosecutor’s motion was directed to the full court, not only Justice Gableman, “in the interest of justice” under “extraordinary circumstances.” To regain the public’s trust, the court must disqualify him if he does not face up to his impropriety and recuse himself.
Governor Christie Wrong—Gay Marriage Should Not Be Referendum Issue
The mere fact that someone’s rights can be put up for a vote from the rank-and-file voter is maddening. I have always opposed granting civil rights based on whether Bubba can finally see that it is OK to do so. I stand with the Founding Fathers in balancing the rights of the minority in this country.
Having said that however New Jersey Governor Christie wants to place a gay marriage referendum on his state’s ballot. Christie’s idea came just as Democrats in Trenton held the first hearing on their new marriage-equality bill, a top priority for New Jersey Democrats this session.
Rutgers-Camden law professor Robert Williams said he was surprised by Christie’s announcement because if the governor wanted a simple vote on making gay marriage legal, a referendum seeking approval for it was unprecedented nationally and “legally unnecessary.”
A new marriage law rather than a constitutional amendment would suffice, he said. “The legislature already has this authority.”
There’s also a philosophical question at play in regard to the referendum. Supporters of same-sex marriage say the issue is equivalent to Jim Crow-era laws banning interracial marriage, and such a fundamental legal question should not be left to the whims of the public.
Sally Goldfarb, a Rutgers-Camden law professor who specializes in family law and gender discrimination, said fixing the civil union law is not possible.
“The problem is, when you give it a different name, people routinely think of it as different status,” Goldfarb said. “We’ve been trying for close to five years and people still don’t know what civil union is.”
John Chadima Says Alcohol The Reason For Sexual Incident With Male Student Employee
The news that John Chadima made unwanted sexual moves on a male student employee during the Rose Bowl trip to California last year created lots of buzz for viewers of the late local news on Tuesday night. After lots of chatter and speculation over the past weeks the facts were laid out for all to see. It was a rather sad and bizarre story.
The former senior associate athletic director resigned his position early this year, and placed the University of Wisconsin at the center of controversy and intrigue after the allegations were made known to university officials. Though there are questions that remain one thing seems to be settled. At least in the mind of John Chadima.
News reports of what led Chadima to make such a foolish sexual move, and then threaten to fire the student employee, seems to place alcohol at the center of the storm.
“It is certainly not reflective of the type of person I am, my lifestyle, my management style or my faith or beliefs,” he wrote.
“However I make no excuses and have come to the realization that over the past few months, alcohol had controlled and consumed my life,” the statement continued. “I am taking steps to correct that problem in my life at this time.”
Once again the blame for bad behavior is placed on the shoulders of alcohol. That might be the appropriate place to point blame, or it might be a quick reflexive move to blunt harsher criticism of Chadima’s character.
When I first heard the response from Chadima about alcohol being to blame my mind flashed to the faces of Congressmen who get caught in hijinks, or celebrities who are caught with their pants down, and then also blamed alcohol. Yes, sometimes people have serious problems with alcohol, and it is the root cause for their bad behavior.
But sometimes alcohol is just a grand PR ploy to avert a more harsh assessment of a person’s character.
After watching the news my mind raced back to an article that I had read not so long ago about this very topic of drinking and making bad decisions. A recent study finds support that people still know they are making mistakes when intoxicated, but just don’t care as much.
While I find our culture too awash in alcohol on the one hand, I also do not like to see alcohol used as an easy excuse for those who really need a way to maneuver through public embarrassment.
If John Chadima has a serious drinking problem then I wish him a treatment plan that will allow for a life of sobriety. I really do. If, however, Chadima is using alcohol to steer his way around a dreadful PR mess then I have less charitable thoughts about the former senior associate athletic director.
Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack To Serve As ‘Designated Survivor’ For State Of Union Speech
This piece of trivia just has been revealed.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will stay away from the U.S. Capitol during tonight’s State of the Union address in order to serve as the Cabinet’s “designated survivor,” according to White House officials.
With the president, vice president, lawmakers, Cabinet secretaries, Supreme Court justices and members of the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff all sitting together in one confined space, by tradition at least one Cabinet secretary skips the speech as a security precaution.
Racist Congressman Doug Lamborn Owes Colorado A Day’s Pay
At a time when parents are trying to instill values into children, and underscore the reason sitting down and talking is preferable to swinging fists comes a story about Colorado’s biggest embarrassment.
Congressman Doug Lamborn who referred to President Obama as “a tar baby” last year is now planning to sit out the State of the Union Speech, which takes place tonight.
The racist mind of Doug Lamborn is surely something for his maker to take stock of, and deal with on Judgment Day. But until then Congressman Lamborn’s butt belongs to the taxpayers who pay his salary and expects him to abide by some common sense along with common acts of civility.
Showing up to the State of the Union address, and acting liking someone with responsibilities which the voters placed on his shoulders, seems to most Americans a no-brainer.
Doug Lamborn seems never to have had parents who instilled certain values or foundations within him during his youth, and therefore he acts out now in ways that are not consistent with social norms. There are many who disagree with President Obama, and yet they will respect the office of the presidency and sit in the House tonight and act civil.
The actions of this errant Republican can only be remedied in one way. Congressman Doug Lamborn needs to pay back to his constituent’s one day’s salary for the lack of work and duty he shrugged off the night of the SOTU speech.
Then Doug Lamborn should act like a man and call President Obama and apologize.
Not for the first time do the campaign finance laws boggle the mind, or leave many of us pondering how we will ever get a cleaner way to run elections. We have all seen and heard about the volumes of cash that pours into the campaign coffers of elected officials.
But rarely does it get more smarmy or upsetting then to hear that four donors–let me repeat that–four donors–anted by 1 million dollars for a Wisconsin candidate–and the four donors were all from outside of the Badger State.
But that is exactly what Governor Scott Walker received from corporate fat cats who think they can buy their way into Wisconsin elections. The question must be asked as to what did Walker have to do, or promise for such a bundle of cash?
What Walker has done is an unseemly way to react to the million voters and taxpayers who live in Wisconsin and signed a petition allowing them to participate in democracy at the grassroots level.
At the end of the day I think one million votes will mean much more than one million dollars.
Giving $250,000 each were Bob Perry, owner of Houston-based Perry Homes and a chief backer of the Swift Boat Veterans ads against Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 race for president; David Humphreys, president of Missouri-based Tamko Roofing Products; Sarah Atkins, a quality consultant for the same company; and Stanley Herzog, chairman and CEO of Missouri-based Herzog.
Perry had given Walker $250,000 in an earlier donation, bringing his total donation to $500,000.
The latest round of giving helped Walker collect $4.5 million in just five weeks.
Why Newt Gingrich Is Like Richard Nixon
From one of my favorites, Jon Meacham.
The analogous elements are obvious. Like Nixon, Gingrich is smart, with a wide-ranging and entrepreneurial mind. Like Nixon, Gingrich is a striver who seems insecure around traditional establishment figures even though he has achieved much more than nearly all the politicians, editors and reporters he seems to at once loathe and fear. Like Nixon, Gingrich is fluent in the vernacular of cultural populism, brilliantly casting contemporary American life in terms of an overarching conflict between “real” people and distant “elites” bent on the destruction of all that is good and noble about the U.S.
Nixon was a genius at this kind of politics, speaking up, as he put it in accepting the Republican nomination in Miami in 1968, for “the forgotten Americans, the non-shouters, the non-demonstrators.” In his epochal memorandum on “Middle America and the Emerging Republican Majority,” Nixon political strategist Kevin Phillips spoke of the resentments “the great, ordinary, Lawrence Welkish mass of Americans from Maine to Hawaii” felt against the liberal elites who “make their money out of plans, ideas, communication, social upheaval, happenings, excitement,” according to Nixonland by Rick Perlstein. In recently released grand-jury testimony from 1975, Nixon told prosecutors that attacking him “is going to make you much more popular with the Washington press corps, with the Georgetown social set, if you ever go to Georgetown, with the power elite in this country.”
