Green Goes to Africa

UPDATE BELOW

Those held breathless since November can now finally exhale upon news of the near-term political future of last year’s GOP gubernatorial wanna-be/won’t-be. Yes, your prayers have been answered: Mark Green is going to Africa.

No deed or perceived sacrifice goes unrewarded in the Republican circle of cronyistic backrubs and post-political payoffs. After all, Republicans are always whining about how much they sacrifice by going into government "service", since they could always make more money raping-and-pillaging in the private sector. After he played the part of President back in the ‘80s, Ronald Reagan and his "Mommy" were paid for his efforts by the "gift" of a $3 million ranch from unnamed wealthy contributors. No doubt Junior Bush will get his after he hits the road – and not a moment too soon – in 2009. Adjusting for inflation, well, I hear the Neverland Ranch is available.

But Junior was a failure, you say. And how. But, despite the revisionist bullshit of recent years by those who know better, Reagan wasn’t much better. You always get the sense of pre-arrangement in these matters. "A deal is a deal," my contracts professor would say. "You pays your money and you takes your chances."

For the, er, lesser lights of the Republican would-be Revolution, the reward sometimes depends on availability and, more important, who is (still) in power. Back in the glory days, the Bushies slipped long-time Wisconsin GOP party chair Rich Gruber into a cushy ambassadorship. Now, with their power in shambles and time running out, they looked around for some way to reward that Green guy who ran that lousy campaign in Wisconsin – thumped convincingly, even with all that help they gave him by going after poor Georgia Thompson – and found the need for Green’s small talents in Tanzania.

It’s hard to tell what Green brings to the project, if there is such a thing, in the small, no doubt needy African country. Sure, he spent time in Africa while a young sprout as a teacher in Kenya with a noble project out of Harvard. Perhaps he can help Bush bring his false dream of abstinence to the fight against AIDS. If there are criminal elements in the government or on the streets, he could surely help relate, having worked hand-in-glove with remarkably-still-free convicted felon Scooter Jensen while in the statehouse and with Tom Delay and Mark Foley after being sent up to the big leagues. If memory serves, he even had an aide close to Jack Abramoff – this is a guy who knows how to get things done, the law be damned.

But ambassadorships to politically-irrelevant countries are the last vestige of an ancient spoils system, a harmless resume-padding device for those who have run for office, contributed or happened be old college frat buddies of presidents – accidental, appointed or otherwise. I doubt Green will spend much of his brief tenure in-country, fixing visa problems by day, beach-walking by night (with security detail, I assume). You wouldn’t want something like this to get in the way of his rain-making legal work or what I assume will be a continued period of post-election whining about that $468,000 he eventually agreed he couldn’t spend on his would-have-failed-anyway campaign. It’s a dead issue, but it’s all he’s got.

UPDATE: The Journal Sentinel weighs in on Green's political payoff this morning as a note in the insipid "Laurels and Laments" section that it runs on its Saturday editorial page (Usual sample: "We saw this week that the traffic lights on Wisconsin Ave. were adjusted to allow a better flow from east to west. This is the kind of bold action that makes our city a great place in which to live.") Apparently, the perk does not merit a whole editiorial of its own. However, Green gets a few props he hardly deserves: "He is generally possessed of uncommon good sense and has superb people skills," claims the J-S.

Oh, really? "Uncommon good sense"? You mean like trying to transfer his complete federal campaign fund, knowing it was against state law, filing a frivilous lawsuit just to cover his ass and ultimately agreeing that the Elections Board got it right, and then still whining about it? You mean like that? You mean like opposing stem cell research? Like proposing a move of the entire state Department of Workforce Development to Milwaukee? Like being Junior Bush's lapdog while he was in Congress? Uncommon, maybe? But uncommon good sense? Quite the opposite.

"Superb people skills"? "Green walked away from reporters pressing him for details on just how he thinks he would fix the state budget deficit." Yep, Mr. Common Man, alright. Superb skill with his buddies like Felon Scooter Jensen, Mark Foley or Tom Delay, maybe. For what that's worth.

Remembering the Unnecessary Dead -- Again

Memorial Day in 2003 came a mere three months after disastrous invasion of Iraq. I wrote then on my old blog about the destroyed lives of the soldiers recklessly sent into harm's way by Junior Bush and his various enablers. Back then, the deaths were relatively few and more traditionally battle-related, as opposed to the continuing crisis, where our troops -- when they are not walking targets for those still avenging the violation of Iraq's sovereignty -- are getting caught in the crossfire of a civil war.

Here is a re-print of my May 26, 2003 post:

Every Memorial Day, I think about the Unnecessary Dead. This year, more than ever, it is important to remember those who have been put in harm’s way by vapid politicians in unworthy and undefined causes, in the pursuit of only power and wealth. The number in the Iraq invasion is 162 (and counting – more deaths today). And, this Memorial Day, I am celebrating the life and family of one of the first to die in this most-recent stupid war – Kendall David Waters-Bey of Baltimore, Maryland.

Kendall, an African-American and a Muslim, died in a helicopter accident on the first day of the invasion. It’s the kind of accident that happens when fragile equipment meets desert wind and sand. Acceptable collateral deaths, no doubt, by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and G.W. Bush.

Not so to Kendall’s father, Michael Waters-Bey. Holding a picture of his son for TV cameras at the time of his son’s Unnecessary Death, he said: "I want President Bush to get a good look at this, really good look here. This is the only son I had, only son." Asked what he say to Bush, the boy president, if he had the (unlikely) chance, he said: "This was not your son or daughter. That chair he sat in at Thanksgiving will be empty forever."

Kendall’s sisters were even more clear: "It's sad that this war is going on and that we have to lose so many people over nothing...This war is all about oil and money. But he [Bush] has already got oil and money. It's about greed. ... He ought to send his daughters over there to fight. See how long they'd last over there."

Whoa. Those of you reading this for the first time – over two months after these statements were lightly and, mostly, only locally reported – now can understand why you might have missed it. The justifiable rage of the Waters-Bey family and their poignant comments were completely ignored by the mainstream media, which opted for the more predictable, banal and (most-importantly) war-supporting "he died doing what he wanted to do" comments of the more traditional, er, white families.

You wonder what happened later to the Waters-Bey family. I think I remember Bush staging a photo-op with the families of the Unnecessary Dead. Didn’t exactly notice whether the Waters-Beys were in front of the line. Or invited at all.

So here is to the memory those American soldiers who died in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq and all the dirty little secret and not-so-secret wars before and since. No one supports the troops more than those who try to stop the Unnecessary Deaths.

Of Dependence, Entitlement and Victimhood

One of the favorite tirades of wing-nuts is about the supposedly terrible cycle of dependence and entitlement by those various imagined elements of society who exist only to soak up Our Money. Whether it’s food stamps or health care or even (in the case of immigrants) education, according to the wing-nuts, there is no end to poor people living large at the public trough. Give a desperate person cooking oil and tortillas and, tomorrow, they will want...beans to put in the tortillas! Those who consider themselves adversely affected by societal injustice are said to be playing the "victim card".

But, take something from the right-wing that they consider their birthright, and there is no contest as to who is best able to loudly wail and gnash teeth. It is the wing-nut, by a country mile.

Right-wingers portray themselves as self-reliant, self-made, entrepreneurial, tough, worldly-wise and straight-shootin’. But, take away just one of their precious AM radio spots, and they will squeal like stuffed pigs headed to the bacon factory. They are exposed as guilty of the sin of dependence. They feel deprived of their entitlement to the non-Brewer evenings on TMJ. What will be done to make up for the loss of McBride? Who will make us whole for this violation of our precious local wing-nut slot?

Since McBride was bounced from the TMJ family like a ground-rule double, the wing-nut radio hogs and blogs have been in full bleat in defense of their beloved Jessica. They bemoan the increased scrutiny of what is said on the public airwaves, as if they can’t possibly be held responsible for what they say. Mark Belling was bellyaching this week about lefties trying to monitor all the wing-nuts on the radio, looking for the same sort of "gotcha" moment that "got" McBride. The premise seems to be that they are "entitled" to this free air-time for the GOP agenda – why can’t they just be left alone to poison the electorate in peace? Anyone daring to listen to what they actually say is playing a trick on them and on you.

It is interesting how hurt the wing-nuts big and small seem to be about this otherwise minor loss. The blowhard bullies have had sand kicked in their eyes and they are running home to tell their mommies. They rightly identify the problem (for them) of having one less local wing-nut on the radio. That means local elections and issues will just be a little less twisted and a little more (gasp!) fair. There will be fewer repetitions of lies about Doyle, Dems in the legislature, local alderman, school funding referendums, etc. There will be one less radio show playing scurrilous anti-Doyle Club for Growth and WMC ads for free five times, and then talking about how wonderful they are. Belling and Sykes will have to pump it up just to keep the negative hit numbers up.

No doubt about it, the GOP message machine is dependent on their radio stalwarts to anchor their daily campaigns of talking-point misinformation. Just this little hit of losing the McBride block of time has them feeling and acting fragile, like maybe their stranglehold on the AM airwaves won’t last forever. Maybe washed-up dips like Dennis Miller are the future – you know, a little nicer, relatively harmless (I said "relatively"), in-one-ear-and-out-the-other stuff, rather than the believe-or-die screechings of Hannity or Savage. Besides, I bet the Miller show is a lot cheaper than keeping the studio in McBride’s house so she doesn’t have to trouble herself with trips to the East Side (a neat little tidbit from Joel McNally’s column). And, if there is one thing radio executives appreciate, it’s cheap programing. What else could possibly explain Jay Weber?

The radio is going to have to find something to do after the Democratic Landslide of 2008, when Rove finally retires and they pull the plug on talking-point support. What will Belling and Sykes do without their marching orders? I can’t imagine them having to dream up all this wing-spin on their own. You can’t get it all from the Drudge Report. Can you imagine those two actually saying something different from each other every day? Talk about the End of the World.

And, McBride – poor Jess – is bitter, you bet. Her new/old blog is filled with the omen of dark conspiracies and mournful pleading. You can hear the pain of her denied dependence; the loss of her Sacred Entitlement, the unrequited pleadings of her lost listeners. Who dares to take her down for the sake of community sanity, better ratings and cheaper programming? You are not the Victims, dear reader, She is. Who will Right the Wrong and give her back what is rightfully hers?

Alas, no one. Maybe she’ll get back on the air as a fill-in on WISN (although they already import another wing-nut woman from Madison for that purpose, and she actually might have to step foot in the studio). She will have to settle, for now, for her unfortunate J-School students (but, wait! It’s summer!). There will be no Oprah moment, no welcome back to the public eye, and no redress for her imagined victimhood.

McBride Dumped for Miller – A Horse A Piece

UPDATED BELOW

As Bill Maher said on his great HBO show last night, not all deaths are sad. Jerry Falwell, the charlatan twister of ignorant souls, croaked in his office this past week, and, although he had already done most of the damage in his long, fear-mongering career, the world is much better that he is gone. Then, this morning, comes the joyful news that TMJ has put Jessica McBride’s radio career out of its misery – or, should I say, relieved the rest of us of having to listen, even in passing, to one more talentless wing-nut.

Sometime last year, before I began this blogging thing in earnest, I was driving down the road one night, trying to listen to McBride. I was so infuriated by something or other that I called the station to get on the air to discuss whatever she was babbling about. In the time between dialing the number and the screener answering the call, I couldn’t take another minute of her incredibly nasal, whiny, unpleasant delivery, much less the substance of her "ideas". When the screener finally answered, all I could do was scream "This woman is so annoying!" Then I hung up, feeling somehow unclean for even thinking about joining Jessica’s World, if only as a sure-to-be rejected caller.

When wing-nuts proclaim that the right-wing has access to all the AM microphones in the country because of some free-market triumph over liberal ideas, I think about McBride. No one ever "competed" for McBride’s slot – someone at TMJ just decided to give it to her based on her political connections and her willingness to spurt the daily GOP talking points. Her droning monotone – when she wanted to make a point, she-would-talk-with-out-in-flec-tion-in-ov-er-ly-long-sent-en-ces-un-til-she-got-to-the-end-and-then-she-would-stop-like-she-had-just-made-the-great-est-point-in-the-world-and-all-you-had-to-do-is-let-it-soak-in..... – made for some of the most excruciating listening possible. This was not someone with undeniable talent that was begging to be heard. And, as far as intellect was concerned, she was the Queen of the Wimpy Hang-Up, abruptly disconnecting from callers who had her on the ropes, which, given her limited capacity, was often.

Even more entertaining, in a train-wreck sort of way, was her TMJ vanity blog. There, in long, rambling, often late-night postings, McBride would flesh out what passed for her "ideas". As comical as the (lack of) substance was, the woman needed an editor. With a little help, she could have been just as insipid in a much shorter period of time. I’m sure her "writing" will continue somewhere on the Web or in the wing-nut-happy Waukesha newspaper that inexplicably runs a column from her, although some of these folks do conveniently disappear once they are not getting paid to blog.

We are informed this morning that McBride’s demise was accelerated by her un-funny pretend-interview with Eugene Kane after the poor 4 year-old was shot outside of her house in the inner city this week. You can’t blame McBride too much for that one, really. Apparently, someone in the backshop at TMJ got a little too cute with the ridiculously unfunny idea that Kane would make chicken sounds if asked "tough" questions by McBride. After it aired, McBride posted something saying she was beginning a new series of conversations with lefties, starting with Kane, and included a link to the fake interview. That post has disappeared from the TMJ site, as she soon will. Radio is Stalinist that way – gone is gone, like it was never there. Last week, she was a valued member of the TMJ line-up. Now? Who was that again?

Speaking of the unfunny, McBride is being replaced by the new nationally syndicated Dennis Miller show. Is there a sadder case in the entertainment world than Dennis Miller? In the late ‘90s, Miller had a brilliant live show on HBO on Friday nights, where Maher now reigns. His monologues and riffs while showing snapshots of the famous were often very funny and insightful. He was usually lefty, sometimes not, especially on stuff like rights for criminal suspects and Bill Clinton. Then 9/11 happened, and, like the formerly gifted writer Christopher Hitchens, he fell off the Cliff of Legitimacy, into the Abyss of Kill-‘em-All. Miller turned so far to the right, he started doing Fox News and Bush fundraisers. HBO had a stand-up special with him a year or so ago and it was depressingly unfunny. He was dour and shrill, substituting unearned ridicule of anything Democrat for his former hip-reference humor. He actually explained in the middle of the show why Junior Bush – someone who would otherwise get deservedly sliced-and-diced by his former self – gets a pass from him in "this time of war". Given his past glory and what looked like a healthy skepicism about all politicians, it was pathetic.

Now, Miller has hit rock-bottom, picking up a stint as a wing-nut radio squawker. I have listened to it several times on WIND (560) in Chicago (where you can also catch an early dose of racist homophobe Michael Savage if you can’t wait until 11 p.m. on TMJ). Besides picking up some extra change sadly shilling for "gold as a great investment", SleepNumber beds and pre-fab steel buildings during the breaks, Miller does the usual national wing-nut nonsense, trumpeting the GOP talking-points of the day. He also fills space by "interviewing" guests who are "one of my best friends in the world" who happen to have written "the greatest book I ever read", like xenophobe Mark Steyn, who writes bogey-man nonsense about the mongrel-ization of Western cultures that are too accepting of all these, you know, Muslims. Miller cheerily goes along with all this, throwing in his now-tired asides about how hanging out at the UN is "like the bar scene in Star Wars", etc. He manages this in a fairly breezy, hep-cat cadence, throwing in Pink Floyd bumper music in case you forgot his generational reference points.

Like I said, sad and tragic. Now we get to listen to his crap instead of McBride’s. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. All we can hope for is lots of Brewer night games, bumping him into the nether regions of the un-listened-to, if only for a night or two.

UPDATE: The other shoe dropped this morning -- no more McBride vanity blog on the TMJ site. She never even got to say goodbye. All together now...Awwww.

Dix Six Trix Nixed

UPDATED -- SEE BELOW

These are not good days for the Grand Old Party:

• The disastrous war in Iraq has caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Because of this and the whole fiasco known as "the Bush Administration", the Republican party is facing the prospect of an electoral rout in 2008 that will make 2006 look like a shining moment of glory.
• The Attorney General has been exposed as a knowing stooge to White House schemers who have tried to purify the nationwide corps of U.S. Attorneys to include only those who will advance phony voter "fraud" and other prosecutions designed to prop up GOP talking points.
• A pathetic group of GOP presidential aspirants are falling all over each other and their own words, desperately trying to find a way to run away from Junior Bush, embrace the exaggerated ghost of Ronald Reagan and to get someone buy their empty souls so they can be the successor empty suit for the next shadow gang of manipulative handlers.
  

In days like this – well, anytime, actually – the Party of the Rich will grab any thin reed to hold on to that which might keep it from finally going completely over the Falls, crushed on the rocks of reality and not-so-instant karma. And so, from the always helpful "Justice" Department, here comes the case of the Fort Dix Six.

For all the Fear the Bushies have tried to ratchet up to drive their agenda since 9/11, and for all the violation of our privacy and civil liberties, there is remarkably little to show for prosecutions of those who would Do Us Harm. Indeed, the hapless law-stretchers at Justice have found it hard to get convictions of those few poor souls they managed to indict. See this interesting compilation of post-9/11 "terrorism" prosecutions put together by the Center for Law and Security at the NYU Law School.

Some of the most interesting highlights: "the vast majority of cases turn out to include no link to terrorism once they go to court" and there is only a "29% conviction rate for federal charges of terrorism". This despite the fact that "conviction, no matter how short the period of time or how minor the charge, is the primary goal" of the government’s efforts. The authors conclude "either that the threat is much less than we thought, or that the policies of the United States have reduced the threat of terrorism through deterrence, and, yes, through excessive vigilance." The authors give the government a little too much credit for creating any atmosphere of deterrence. With the government wasting its time chasing around wanna-bees like the Fort Dix Six, what serious evil-doer would be deterred by that activity? My guess is, if they exist anywhere in this country, they have a good laugh and go right back to work.

But that doesn’t stop the wing-nuts and other Bush enablers to glom onto the news of the Dix indictment to toss out all the regular canards, not the least of which is Fear, of course; but also "the PATRIOT act works" and "we must continue warrantless searches of phone conversations, bank records, , etc." One look at the affidavit supporting the indictment shows that, while not as lame as the guys a couple of years ago whose first request when meeting with a fake supplier was for "really good boots", these guys were a long way away from being a danger to anyone.

One thing that jumps out of the document is that absolutely none of the vaunted PATRIOT act or extra-legal snooping touted as so necessary by the Bushies and their allies were used to foil what was already a very bad plan to attack the Army base at Fort Dix with the equivalent of assorted sticks and stones. After their DVD replication service turned an amateurish tape of their shootin’-and-shoutin’ play over to the authorities (even porn afficionados know to watch out for that happening), investigators simply applied good police work to find out what they were up to and eventually arrest them. The affidavit relates lots of phone conversations, but not from warrantless wiretaps – the calls are with an informant that was able to infiltrate the group (that they allowed the infiltration is a primary sign of lameitude for any self-respecting jihadist).

These deluded fools dared to partake in paintball training in furtherance of their evil designs. Paintball training! They also jumped through quite a few hoops to just get a decent map of Fort Dix. A map! By the time they were set up by the informant to meet with a fake arms dealer that was going to finally get them some AK-47s (they were arrested instead), the whole group of them apparently only had a shotgun, a handgun and maybe a couple of rifles between them. They would be the successors to the Gang that Couldn’t Shoot Straight, but they didn’t have anything to shoot.

They weren’t "terrorists" – they dreamed and talked about of being terrorists. They are guilty of impure thoughts and false bravado. You can imagine them jumping out of their pizza delivery truck at the checkpoint outside Fort Dix, the guard effortlessly grabbing the guns out of their hands, slapping them in the face and literally kicking their silly asses back where they came from. No one at Fort Dix was ever in danger from these guys, much less the rest of us.

But that doesn’t stop the wing-nuts from using the wacky antics of the Dix Six to justify everything from more illegal snooping to the Iraq war to the war on illegal immigrants (3 of the 6 were illegal, or something). In the meantime, Osama bin Laden spends another summer dancing in the mountains of Pakistan, the Iraqi "parliament" is taking a couple of months off and three of our soldiers are missing.

UPDATE: In the GOP "debate" last night, Mr. 9/11, Rudy Giuliani, used the Dix Six arrests as an excuse for the Iraq war, claiming it was proof of the "if we leave there, they will follow us home" nonsense. He also used it to play the immigration card, saying the lack of "reform" means illegals can "find a big underground to hide in". Oh, that Rudy -- like Bush, he's never seen a tragedy or crime that he couldn't play for political advantage.

And then there is Jessica McBride, who claims the media is downplaying the Dix Six story because, well, they're so soft of terrorism, I guess. Most of her screed is devoted to the fact that some of them were illegal (they "went to public schools and had businesses"!) and from the the former Yugoslavia, although 23 years or so removed (never mind that the 20-somethings came here as children). She also manages to suggest that the "secret recordings" made were proof of the success of King George's warrantless program. No. The recordings were made by the informant -- if he consents to the recording (he did), no warrant is necessary -- and there is no evidence that any of the extraordinary powers claimed by Bush had anything to do with the investigation whatsoever.

So, calm down, Jessica. You never know when something might happen that really proves your "points". But I wouldn't hold my breath. The hapless Fort Dix Six sure ain't it.

You've Read It, Now Hear About It

As regular readers know, this blog is all sooo serious and political. And, yeah, it's been a couple of weeks -- I promise to get something new and topical out there in the next couple of days.

But, with a summer-like sun shining for at least one day here in Milwaukee, let's talk music.

• Radio Milwaukee continues to evolve as a breath of fresh air on the bottom of the FM dial (well, it used to be a dial -- honest!). 88.9 is delightfully ecclectic -- much more old-school and R&B than I expected. I also have learned a lot about some new stuff -- it hasn't changed my opinion much about the death of rock and roll as a social force, but I now understand there is more out there than Dave Matthews. It should be a great summer knowing that there is now a station you can lock into while driving around and also get something unexpected and enjoyable. It's only been, like, 30 years since you could say that in Milwaukee.


• If you have never been to Summerfest in Milwaukee, it is worth the trip whoever is playing. Two of my favorite acts are appearing opening night on June 28th -- Steely Dan at the Ampitheater and Milwaukee's own Violent Femmes at the Miller Oasis. I promised my boy (12) I would take him to see the Femmes for the first time, so it's a tough choice. I just hope he knows he'll be the one saving our seats all day...

I have been grabbing my guitar and playing around Madison and Milwaukee off and on for a long time. I am doing a "Mike Plaisted and Friends" night at Linneman's (1001 E. Locust in Milwaukee's Riverwest) this coming Thursday (the 17th), from about 9 to Midnight. Yes, there are political songs ("Why Does Dan Rather Want to Be My Friend", "Stupid War", "Community Standards" [Inspirational Verse: "Some people will do anything/To get themselves elected"]). So, if you are around, come on and check me out live in person.

I am also hosting and playing at the "Peace Though Music" Lennon tribute at Linneman's on the night before Memorial Day (May 27th). It is a benefit for WAVE (Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort) and the Brady Campaign.

Alright, enough self-promotion. Now back to the nitty gritty...

At the Blog Summit

If I had some fear and trepidation about the Blog Summit at Marquette this past weekend, it was amplified when I got there and figured out it was being held in a law school lecture hall. It has been some 21 years since I had the pleasure of these kind of surroundings (albeit at UW) and, somehow, you never shake the feeling of dread and sheer tedium that comes with certain environments, even if there are now electrical outlets for your laptop and wireless in the air (although not really working). Regardless, I enjoyed the program more than I thought I would, thanks to the smooth efforts of Wispolitics’ Jeff Myers, Mike Gousha, the energy in the air and the contributions of several of the panelists.

The more entertaining and enlightening panel by far was the "diversity panel", featuring Eugene Kane, Jennifer Morales and – the pleasant surprise of the day – Dasha Kelly. A writer and poet, Dasha was smart, funny and delightful. She is a great example of the kind of bright light that shouldn’t have to fight through editors and space limitations to be heard. She sort of made us political back-and-forthers look silly with our sometimes-petty gamesmanship, as she cut straight to heart of her very personal life and observations. She said she wasn’t political, saying that it was so obvious that good schools are important, what more is there to say? But that in itself is a political statement, especially when many of the right-wingers in attendance are actively trying to undermine public education. [Aside: the mention of school "choice" industry shill George Mitchell’s name during another panel properly got one of the biggest laughs of the day.]

The conundrum posed by the diversity panel was an appropriate one: What’s with all the white guys in the room? Indeed, most of those in attendance at the Summit were as white as the guys in the portraits of legal luminaries plastered all over the walls of the lecture hall. If blogging is to ever become a truly democratic revolution, more and different people need to come to the party. Morales and Kelly attributed the lack of minority and working-class participation to the fact that the poor don’t have time for this sort of relative nonsense, unless it is putting food on the table. Kane suggested African-American media outlets like the black radio stations and newspapers should develop more of a blog presence, which they should, since they have the resources and the audience that needs to get its voice heard.

I asked Eugene Kane what it felt like to be regularly called a racist by a variety of radio and blogging wing-nuts who were at the Summit. (Making my point for me after the fact, right-wing golden-boy and Sykes TV panel lackey Owen Robinson rudely accuses fellow panelist Kane of "racism" for his remarks at this very Summit.) Kane let those in attendance off the hook a little too easily, I think. If I were him, I would have called out a few. Instead, he said that kind of nonsense has rolled off his back since he began at the Journal Sentinel and he left it at that.

In the first panel, Ed Garvey successfully baited Charlie Sykes into making a fool of himself. You can see why Sykes seldom exposes himself in a public forum. After I asked Garvey and Dem consultant John Kraus what progressives could do to get the kind of megaphone the right has with their talk radio echo chamber, Sykes smugly produced "the world’s tiniest violin" for us to play – in other words, he has the talk show distributing his tripe on the 50,000-watt station and the rest of us can go stuff it. He then mentioned Air America (big laugh from the wing-nuts on that one), NPR, NBC, CBS, ABC, New York Times...you know the drill. It’s a lie and he knows it – the only thing progressive about the MSM outlets is that they are reality-based, as opposed to the wing-nut fantasy world Sykes lives in.

I made a comment before that particular question that I think bears some repeating and some thought. The question being discussed was what impact blogs have had on elections. My comment was that the lefty blogs have had little, because we are somewhat diverse and come from different perspectives and interests. The right-wing blogs, on the other hand, are always on the same talking points as wing-nut radio, be it talking about Pelosi’s scarf or Sheryl Crow’s single-square of toilet paper. My point was that the right-wing blogs provide much more political cover for the radio squawkers and their politicians than left-wing blogs do for whatever is going on on our side and therefore have more effect.

This was apparently "whining", according to GOP flack and panelist Brian Fraley. For one thing, unlike the characterization of my comment by another right-winger, I did not say it was "unfair" that the left didn’t have the same sort of vehicle (although, in terms of use of public airwaves, it is). I think it was a fair description of the relative playing fields. But, even if we had a chance, progressives would never use their message power to pound lies the way the right does. For one thing, we don’t have to – the truth is always on our side.

Anyway, nobody whines louder or more pathetically than a bunch right-wingers trying to convince you that the MSM has all this supposed liberal bias. Some of that very whining was done by Sykes himself, as he complained – no, whined – at the panel about the Journal Sentinel ignoring a non-story about some comment by Michael McGee, Jr "spontaneously" discovered by a fellow-traveler’s blog (nothing happens by accident in wing-nut-land). It seems to me McGee saying something incendiary is like Junior Bush saying something stupid – it’s just not news anymore.

As for the rest of it:

• Jessica McBride disappointed by coming in with notes and a fairly subdued attitude, except when she explained why her "blog" doesn’t have comments (supposedly libel concerns and, really, she just doesn’t want to hear it). At least she hung around most of the day, unlike Sykes who bolted after his session, lest he be exposed to more of the real world.
• What I’m sure was an excellent presentation by Madison attorney Jennifer Peterson was unfairly affected by my flashbacks to the legal classroom and the many legal education classes I have taken through the years. No matter how interesting, one case citation and I’m down for the count. I talked to the very friendly Rick Esenberg about it, and I think we are both putting in for 30 minutes of CLE credits.
• Rick and I both said we read each other’s blog, both agreed each other was wrong about everything, and continued a very nice conversation. That’s what I like about being around most lawyers – disagreeing without being disagreeable (are you listening, Owen?). The only thing I could think that might lead to fisticuffs (well, more likely, armwrestling) is Bush v. Gore. Now them’s fightin’ words!

Not Dead Yet, But Well On The Way

It isn’t often that the GOP puts its cards on the table so you can see them. Usually, their game plans are devised in Washington, distributed to the disseminators, and we only see the implementation of the daily talking points; you know – Pelosi’s scarf, Sheryl Crow’s single square of toilet paper, etc. Seldom do we see the Big Picture of the GOP’s design to fool enough people into supporting their causes and candidates all in one place.

But Charlie Sykes gives it all up this week in his no-doubt well-paid alter-ego as a "senior fellow" at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI), a right-wing front group disguised as a "think tank", based in Wisconsin and funded (like Sykes himself) by the usual suspects.

In an article titled "Not Dead Yet", Sykes visits the morgue to view the chilled body of "conservatism" and declares that the dead shall live, even as the deceased is rolled toward the oven, soon to be seared into the ashes of history.

Sykes is paid well by many to front for this kind of optimism. His article purports to offer a game plan for the return of Republican (he says "conservative", but we know who he’s working for) rule after the Bush years, which have been as much a disaster for the GOP as they have been for everybody else.

For all its lofty ambition, the piece is remarkably trite, featuring the same tired rhetoric Sykes trots out on his radio show. You know the routine: lefty "socialists" will overreach and brave conservatives will ride to the rescue, with SUVs and tax cuts for all, blah blah blah.

A large part of Sykes’ plan is "defining the terms of the debate between the left and the right", a service he provides for the GOP every day, for free, on his public-airwave, 50,000-watt radio show. And, as it is with all wing-nuts, "defining the terms" begins with telling lies about the left. He claims the left "offers" the following:

• "Grievance (the politics of victimization)" – No one is supposed to complain or seek redress for anything. If you think you are discriminated against because of your race, gender, sexual orientation – well, you big baby. Democrats support providing a little equalizer against social and economic Darwinism and believe the equal protection clause of the Constitution means something other than Bush beats Gore. And, guess what – some people really are victims.
• "Entitlement" – well, one person’s entitlement is another person’s safety net. Does he mean Social Security and Medicare, which has provided at least minimal security for our parent’s generation? Food stamps and medical care for the poor? Libraries? Is health care for all a good idea? Sure, and, as with all safety nets, it would make society safer, healthier and, yes (this is Sykes’ real problem), more equal.
• "Class envy (and the politics of Redistribution)" – McCarthyism is not dead. The wing-nuts are increasingly throwing out the S-word to "remind" whoever is listening to them that the Democrats want to take your money and give it to them. Nonsense, of course, but, as with much of this, they hope the repeated lie becomes the perceived truth. Ironically, it is GOP surrogates like Sykes who play the real "class envy" game, making sure their listeners know about the supposed wine-and-brie inclinations of the Hollywood "elite" and who keep secret the truly elite nature of the people who fund, say, the WPRI. At least the Dems are out there in public with their supporters. Where do I go to meet yours, Charlie?
• "Bureaucracy and the Nanny State" – ah, the Nanny State. This is the one, Sykes will tell you, that wants you to lose the trans fats and maybe keep sugar soda out of school vending machines. There is no place in Sykes World for, say, an FDA that protects us from bad food or fraudulent drug claims. You are all on your own, apparently. The "market" will sort things out, if it can sort through all the dead and damaged bodies.
• "Tax increases" – See Socialism, Politics of Redistribution, above. Tax "increase" also means the elimination of the cynically sunset-ed Bush tax cuts for the rich, enacted while everyone was asleep right after 9/11. Sykes argues that, since Democrats want to provide more government service (such as universal health care), they must be planning to raise taxes. But the biggest government spenders in the history of the world are the Bush Republicans and they never had to pay for it, so why should we? Local and state governments have to live within their means and, yes, cigarettes and gas might cost more. Deal with it or cut back.
• "Group identity" – You know those cute ethnic events and festivals that Old Milwaukee used to celebrate as part of our diversity – you know, German, Polish, Italian – all those white guys? Well, as the skin of our residents got browner and yellower – suddenly, group identity is a bad thing. Grandma on the south side still talking Polish is quaint and heroic – her neighbor talking Spanish or Hmong is probably some kind of damn criminal. That Democrats recognize ethnic, racial and sexual diversity just means we live in the real world. The white guys just had their last run – I’m afraid the Bushies ruined that whole deal forever.
• "Collectivism" – See Socialism, above-above. Well, we are in all this together, and the problem with that realization is...what, now? The fear he is trying to strike in the hearts of his suburban audience is that they might have to get out of their cocoons and deal with other people of, ugh, other types. They can relax. They can stay in their subdivisions and hide from the rest of us, if they want. They will be missing out on an exciting future, but, heck, just stay put.
• "Litigation" – I assume he means people suing individuals and corporations who have harmed them. I assume he doesn’t mean the majority of civil litigation, which involves businesses suing other businesses, debt collection, foreclosures and other actions that keep business-side lawyers the best paid in the business. It is part of the rank hypocrisy of the wing-nuts – complaining about the small, rare legal victories of the little guy against the corporations, while being perfectly comfortable with a record number of foreclosures, evictions and repossessions by corporations against the little guy.
• "Multiculturalism" – see Group Identity, above. What could be worse than accepting and celebrating the many cultures that make up the fabric of America? Like I said, we used to appreciate this stuff when it was just European diversity – just different styles of lederhosen or whatever.
• "Ambivalence on security" – ambivalence as in – what? Because we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq? Because we want to leave that particular quagmire? Because, if you say someone is a terrorist, we think you should have to prove it in better than a kangaroo court? Because we know torture doesn’t work and should be above using it even if it did? Because we resist the government trolling our phone and bank records on a fishing expedition and we don’t trust them not to use it for other reasons? We are not ambivalent on security – we’re smarter. The security situation after 9/11 calls for much more than ham-fisted thrashing around playing the role of some bad-movie tough guy. Is there anyone except these nut-jobs who think that we would be much more "secure" with anyone but Junior Bush in the White House? Here's a secret: they know it, too.

Sykes goes on to recite the glorious attributes of conservatives – including belief in glittering generalities like "freedom", "opportunity", "growth" and other concepts that liberals are not against anyway. My favorite is "common sense". Yeah, a lot of that going on in Iraq and elsewhere.

There is something heartening in all this cluelessness. If Sykes really thinks the right can make a comeback by lying about progressives the way they have done for years, he is sadly mistaken. There is a theory I read recently that talk radio and the other elements of the GOP echo chamber serve only to convince themselves; that they will soon look around and see only themselves listening to this crap and will be unable to deal with the world the way it really is, especially after the Dems pick up the White House and increase their majorities in both houses of Congress in 2008. They will still have their radio shows and their secret enclaves and they’ll continue to try to poison the nation’s politics. But, in the end, they might as well be on some VOA short-wave broadcast beaming into Cuba. It means nothing and they’ll be standing on the outside while the rest of us move forward, positively and proudly.

Welcome to Limbo...

One of the amusing aspects of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is their frequent pilgrimage to Catholic-land in its news pages. No doubt trying to accommodate part of its aging demographic, whenever Archbishop Dolan sneezes, the J-S gets a cold. All proclamations are treated with the utmost seriousness, as if the sometimes-celibate men in robes trying to perpetuate the paternalistic pretenses of a medieval past have any relevance to a world that has passed them by, several times over. As a long-fallen-away former altar boy and Guitar Mass content-provider, I feel warm and touched by the patronizing coverage, like a touch of Latin and the smell of sacremental wine. I also find the newspaper again seeking relevance by exploring the irrelevant.

This Saturday, the paper updated faithful and pagan alike on Catholic doctrine relating to limbo, that imperfect place where, is had been said from time to time, unbaptized babies must spend eternity. It’s the sort of serious article about otherwise absurd religious doctrine that gives the J-S its unique niche as the go-to paper for the still-deluded.

Not heaven and not hell – except that anything short of heaven is, er, certainly not optimal – limbo existed as a necessary extension of the doctrine of Adam’s original sin, which, if not extinguished by the sacrament of baptism, we all carry to the grave, even if our grave is a very small and unfortunately infant-sized one. I mean, people who still had original sin couldn’t get into heaven just because they were kids. And, it would be kind of rough to just send all those infants to eternal damnation just because Adam couldn’t keep it real (and we know why that was, don’t we Eve?). So, someone came up with limbo – not as hot as purgatory (short-time hell) and, in fact, somewhat pleasant by all (imaginary) reports – but placement there was forever.

Wikipedia has a remarkable entry on the Catholic-only doctrine of original sin and the concept of limbo, including a link in the footnotes to a long screed by St. Augustine on the whole serious business of unbaptized babies. The rambling piece (well, the guy did write it in 390 or so -- they had a lot of time on their hands those days) includes chapters titled "Unless Infants are Baptized, They Remain in Darkness" and (my favorite) "The Case of Certain Idiots and Simpletons". You’ve got to admire this kind of complete-ism, trying to rationalize every strange doctrine of the Church with every known anomaly. You can see old St. Augie tying himself up in philosophical knots as he stretches and strains to put the square peg of Catholic teachings in the round hole of life.

The Journal Sentinel apparently viewed Pope Benedict’s (nee: Ratzinger) revision of the limbo concept as important stuff, running the AP posting on Page 3 of the front page. Ever the bearer of good news (or, as it were, Good News) the article proclaimed that "there was reason to hope that babies who die without baptism can go to heaven". Well, let’s hope so, shall we? What kind of church would have it any other way? Oh...never mind.

Benedict’s role was apparently to approve the report of a Catholic organ called the "International Theological Commission", the result of the Pope’s call for "further study on limbo". You wonder what sort of "study" might be had on an entirely imaginary place or state of being. Searching a section of the sky for lost souls? Checking the database of souls signed in at heaven’s gate for missing names or fetuses (yes, part of the "pastoral need" to sort all this out is to figure out what happens to even the unborn – can you baptize a fetus?)? "These are reasons for prayerful hope rather than grounds for sure knowledge," says the report. Gee, ya think?

Actually, other reports on the limbo study were a bit more emphatic. The New York Times headline at least had a little definitive pizzazz: "Pope Closes Limbo", reporting in a one-paragraph story that the study actually "demoted" limbo. Limbo, Pluto – good grief, what’s next? When the concept of limbo was originally threatened by the temporarily-flexible church in the late ‘60s, George Carlin had the best line, saying that he hoped all those limbo-ed souls were "promoted" and weren’t "just cut loose in space".

It’s not likely the Journal Sentinel is going to develop much of a sense of humor about these serious liturgical matters, no matter how inadvertently comical. Now that all the unbaptized babies have hope (at least), perhaps we can now turn our attention to those in more identifiable and tangible limbos. There is political limbo, like Alberto Gonzales, maybe John McCain. There is legal limbo – hey, are the convicted Scooters (Libby and Jensen) in prison yet? Try as they might to define it out of existence, limbo remains too convenient a concept to let go of completely. Unbaptized babies without fault or direction of their own are one thing, but grown-ups stuck in a limbo of their own making – now, that’s entertainment!

Vigilant Wing-Nut Enablers

Tim Cuprisin took a break from his American Idol summaries to write a story in the Journal Sentinel Saturday about how "vigilant" Milwaukee radio will be in the wake of the Imus firing. The article is a classic piece of tripe in which Cuprisin dutifully discusses these serious matters with program directors of the two wing-nut radio stations in town, and finds them both minding the store with the utmost concern for their vulnerable listeners. In fact, both could care less what crap they put on the air, as long as it furthers their political agenda.

Take WISN’s Jerry Bott – please. When he’s not arranging time-slots for slime-masters like Mark Belling, Jay Weber, Sean Hannity and Mark Levine, Bott has also sidelined as a substitute wing-nut himself. Bott, who proudly kept the race-baiting Belling on the air after he called Hispanics "wetbacks" a few years ago, is no doubt proud of the racist promotional spot that plays on his station repeatedly, promoting the ridiculous Weber’s morning show. The spot features an outrageous Chinese voice caricature, who announces that he is "Mao Tse-tung in Hell", come to sing the praises of Jim Doyle’s "tax increases". I tell you, it’s a stitch. Other spots declare the station "Your Conservative Home" and say it fights against "poverty pimps" and "Democrat traitors". Yes, sir – Bott is just the guy to talk seriously about civility on the radio.

I’m not sure Cuprisin quite understood what Bott was telling him. The Bott quote is such a mush of double-speak, you can almost hear the asides running around in his head: "Any time you go through an incident at your station [like that "wetback" thing, can you imagine those damn whining minorities? What a pain in the ass.], it certainly puts a sharper focus on the potential problems [or defines what we might be able to get away with] that broadcasting such material could put forth [unless you are ready with attack dogs that can provide cover]...And it makes you more vigilant [so that we can continue poisoning the political discourse without all these damn questions].

Likewise, TMJ PD Jon Schweitzer, who did nothing last week when Charlie Sykes called Al Sharpton a "pimp", except, maybe, give him another raise. "[A]nything you say is gone the moment you say it," said the obviously-brilliant Schweitzer, who presides over such local gone-sayers as Sykes and the atrocious Jessica McBride. Proving that anything goes on the formerly respectable TMJ, Schweitzer defends the placement of syndicated hatemonger Michael Savage on the late shift. "Anything we carry on our air is our responsibility...Obviously, we have less control." Well, whatever. You wouldn’t want to break your back trying to get some programing on the air that isn’t demeaning, racist, homophobic, war-mongering and otherwise inflammatory. I mean, that’s just asking too much, isn’t it?

The only thing that gets the radio wing-nuts even slightly off the hook for their deliberately divisive tactics is that someone else decides that they get to be on the air in the first place. Immediately after the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated by Reagan’s FCC in 1987, program directors around the country took advantage of the situation to poison the public airwaves with patronizing conservative talkers, seeking the angry-white-male demographic. That evolved into the current situation, where the now-established wing-nuts take GOP spin and talking-points and run them into the ground, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, all over the country.

The effect of this development on the national discourse is to skew, divide and destroy the entire political atmosphere, like smog on a clear day. The program directors most responsible for the right-wing hijacking of the airwaves should not be held out as responsible "vigilant" radio executives. Well, they're "vigilant" alright, but it has nothing to do with decent radio and everything to do with creating support for Republican policies that, especially these days, would not otherwise exist.

Imus Fired; Sykes Dodges

A couple of days ago, I submitted a fairly timely and newsy post, I thought. I had just heard Charlie Sykes call Al Sharpton a "pimp" on his radio show, while he was discussing the Imus imbroglio. The use of "pimp" referring to strong, flamboyant African-American man is certainly as offensive as Imus calling some basketball players "hos".

In fact, it was worse. The Imus incident happened because he was egged on by his incredibly stupid producer to say something about people he knew nothing about, based on their physical appearance in some sports footage. In contrast, Sykes chose to use his racial slur against someone he seeks to belittle, on purpose, with premeditation and malice.

My post fell in the blogosphere like a leaden balloon on a bright summer day. I got some comments and a couple hundred people checked it out, but I didn’t get the post linked on WisOpinion (always a disappointment, but that often happens when I pick on one of their other featured "bloggers") and surely no acknowledgment from Sykes or anyone seeking to defend his wacky racist antics.

One of my favorite wing-nut tactics is when they point out supposedly progressive bloggers or commenters that have written something so outrageous that they can use it to slur all Democrats or lefties. The most prominent recent example is when somebody dug deep in the Huffington Post comments section to find celebrations of the bombing outside of a compound where Dick Cheney was staying in Afghanistan. "This is the Democratic base!" they exclaim, when such comments are nothing of the sort. In fact, like the phony "lefty" callers that provide comic relief on local and national wing-nut radio, such comments are left by probably plants – someone pretending to be left just to give the left a bad name.

But they ignore the effective progressive voices, because they don’t have an answer for them. Although I know I am being read by them, they refuse to engage. As I have always contended, the wing-nuts are repelled from honest debate like Superman from Kryptonite. Sykes or Belling wouldn’t let themselves get caught in a even-up public debate if their life depended on it. The radio emperors would be exposed without their clothes. They hide in their corporate studio cocoons and their safely-constructed TV-show panels. If they said half the stuff they do on the radio in public, they’d get eaten alive. They are the wimpiest tough-guys in show business.

So, now, for his sins, the relatively progressive Imus has been sacked – banished to the false futuristic promise of satellite radio, no doubt. But Sykes (with his "pimp" calling) and Belling and (with his "wetback" comment) remain on the air and untouchable. Is Milwaukee really this desperate for media personalities that we have to put up with these divisive poisonous personalities? Can’t we do better? Shouldn’t we try?

P.S.: Speaking of (not) engaging, I called in to the Belling show this afternoon. He was exercising his remarkable intellect on the Iraq war, which is always good for a laugh. I was calling to say he actually was very close to the Democratic position of pulling the troops out of harm’s way in Baghdad and keeping some in the country (read: redeploy) to fight Al Qaeda and protect borders. The screener put me on hold, eventually told me I was "next", then clicked in to tell me he was "sorry" and the line went dead. I don’t know why they even bothered to pretend I was going to get a chance on the air with Belling, who is a notorious debate-wimp. Several years ago, I actually got on the air and he was in trouble dealing with an honest debate. Suddenly, he asked me a question and then cut me off. On the air, he actually pretended like I was still there, and pretended that I couldn’t answer the question. These are the kinds of people we are dealing with – paranoid, manipulative wimps with microphones.

Answers to Blog Summit Survey

Recently, the organizers of the WisPolitics Blog Summit, to be held on April 28 at Marquette University, sent a survey to various bloggers, asking for comment on this year’s event, which has drawn some criticism from various quarters for various reasons. I haven’t weighed in on these issues, but I thought I would answer the survey and share it with my readers.

I hope the folks at WisPolitics take these comments as constructive. I value my spot as a featured blog on the always-interesting WisOpinion page. There is a bit of "biting the hand that feeds me" here, but 1) it’s hard to avoid, under the circumstances; 2) Elvis Costello raised such "biting" to a reputable art form on "Radio, Radio"; and 3) part of the blogging experience is taking chances in the interest of making one’s voice heard.

If anything can be said about the panels developed for the summit (agenda), it is that it is weighted toward the right-wing perspective and establishment-types. GOP-surrogates Charlie Sykes and Jessica McBride are emerging from their studio cocoons for the day, hopefully not with rules in place that will prevent honest debate. Although this is supposedly a summit for bloggers, Sykes and McBride are not bloggers. They only use their web presence to post their show-prep, self-serving e-mails from Scott Walker and David Clarke, and various links to RNC-inspired web content. In addition, if you can’t post comments – as is the case with all Journal Inc. personality-sites – it’s not really a blog.

Ed Garvey notwithstanding, there is no countervailing progressive perspective that will be able to challenge the talking-point recitations of the TMJ wing-nuts. God bless ‘im, but my guess is that Ed (from Madison)is not tuned in to what Sykes is up to on a daily basis on the radio in Milwaukee. The excruciating McBride is the only officially-opinionated person on the "what is blogging doing to journalism" panel -- like she would know. Other than the diversity panel, he only "real" bloggers invited are the dutifully on-message right-winger (and, natch, Sykes TV panel talking-head) Owen Robinson and the eccentric sometimes-progressive Jay Bullock. Both, apparently, also led the same panel last year.

Anyway, here are my answers to the Summit Survey:

Suggestions for Ideas to Discuss at the Summit:

• Establishment vs. pajama bloggers: Who is more interesting?
• Should radio talkers who put their show prep on-line be allowed to call themselves "bloggers"?
• Given the message discipline of right-wing bloggers, do we need more than one of them?
  

If you are attending (and I am), why are you?

• To see if any true dialog is going to take place.
• Can't get enough of Charlie Sykes and Jessica McBride.
• To see if Folkbum brings his guitar (if so, I'll bring mine)
• Missing Mike Gousha.
  

Suggestions for Future Panels:

• How to Maintain and Reward Independence and Creativity.
• How to Avoid the Development of Hierarchy that Stifles Fresh Voices.
• Recognizing the hijacking of the blogosphere by paid or otherwise-rewarded hacks advancing their own careers or bank accounts.
  

Who would you like to see on next year’s panels?

• Anyone other than those on this year's program.
• At least one "pajama" blogger who broke through recently.
• A lefty whose message is not under-cut by excessive eccentricity.
• A right-winger with an original thought (I know -- this is a tough one).

Sykes Calls Sharpton a "Pimp"

I don’t know why all these people are up in arms about Dom Imus’ stupid comment about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. Radio owners and program directors tolerate racist comments from Milwaukee’s glittering radio wing-nuts all the time and no one seems to give a rip.

In fact, Charlie Sykes, while talking about the Imus incident and pretending to care about the women affected this morning, called Al Sharpton a "pimp".

That’s right, he called a strong black man a pimp. Just like Mark Belling called Hispanics "wetbacks" a couple of years ago. But nothing ever happens. And these and other radio clowns continue to be treated like legitimate commentators.

The wing-nut talking points after the Imus controversy reached fever pitch yesterday included the tactic of deflection, in which the squawkers pretend to agree that the behavior is bad, but try to deflect the problem on to someone else. All day yesterday, wing-nuts national and local criticized Imus, but also made what they pretended were brilliant points by claiming that Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who were again out-front on an important racial issue, were no better.

This morning, Sykes was pretending to admire the Rutgers women during their press conference when the Sharpton talking-point flashed in his head. The women, he said, were worth trying to accommodate but not the "race-baiting pimp" Sharpton.

The term "pimp" in reference to black men is certainly offensive, the male corollary of the offensive "ho" label used by Imus. In the Washington Post this morning, Eugene Robinson explains the recent history and offensiveness of "ho" and suggests that it be retired as "hateful" reference to black women. The same can and should be said about Sykes’ use of the word "pimp" to childishly diminish Al Sharpton. He takes all kinds of cheap shots at his white liberal targets, but he wouldn’t call a white guy a "pimp".

My guess is, even if anyone notices this or if someone else takes up the issue, Sykes will skate, as usual. Just a couple of months ago, he deliberately "misunderstood" Michael McGee, Jr., claiming he said "Jew cops" when he was saying "Jude cops", even after listening to and prepping the sound bite for discussion with one of his lofty panels. He apologized and that was supposed to be that, and it was.

My guess is he won’t even bother apologizing or even acknowledging the issue, unless someone "major" picks it up. Don Imus has always taken hits for his stupidity through the years. But, in the insular and protective local environment of the Milwaukee media, Sykes cannot be touched, no matter how outrageous and, yes, racist.

Journal Sentinel: No Tears for Georgia Thompson

The right-wing-nuts on the radio are getting sooo predictable.

The talking-points from the GOP after Biskupic’s in absentia spanking in the 7th Circuit were the standard tiresome spin. Ignoring the tragedy visited on Georgia Thompson by the political prosecutor, all the usual suspects took the opportunity to make excuses for Biskupic and to try to smear Jim Doyle. Thompson’s un-conviction proved almost as useful to the GOP surrogates as the conviction itself, giving the led-by-the-nose squawkers another opportunity to pretend that no evidence of Doyle wrongdoing is somehow evidence of Doyle wrongdoing.

The Republican talking-points were so unoriginal, you could have written them yourself – not that our radio talkers would ever try such a thing themselves:

1. Biskupic is just an "aggressive" prosecutor and did nothing wrong by sending an innocent civil servant to prison. It was not his fault that she refused to "flip" on Doyle. Insert snide suggestions about how she will be rewarded for her loyalty here.
2. Biskupic, other prosecutors (including Peg Lautenschlager, suddenly a paragon of good judgement), a grand jury, the trial jury and the trial judge all decided Thompson committed a crime. The 7th Circuit panel disagreed and that controls, but, you know, all those good, honest people thought something was wrong, so, you know, something was wrong.
3. Doyle, who distanced himself from Thompson before and after the conviction (useful phrase: "threw her under the bus"), now embraces her. His refusal to take questions from Channel 27 (Madison), which bragged about the fact that Thompson was in prison to promote its exaggerated (read: pro-GOP) coverage of the case, is a sign of his desperation to avoid asking hard questions.
4. Mention the Troha indictment early and often, keeping the heat on "Diamond Jim" and his "most corrupt administration in Wisconsin history". Lather, rinse, repeat. Keep the "where there’s smoke, there’s fire" story arc going, even if smoke is as phony and thin as the evidence against Thompson.
   

Again, tiresome. Excuses for Biskupic, smears for Doyle. Oh, and by the way, did you see Nancy Pelosi in that head scarf? The wing-nuts are so insightful, aren’t they? It’s too bad there aren’t more panels we can put them on to further legitimize these intellectual heavyweights.

As much as we expect this sort of predictable poison from the wing-nuts, it is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that takes the cake for the most outrageous reaction to the Thompson acquittal. In an editorial two days after the reversal, the J-S did not even mention Biskupic or even give a polite nod to acknowledge the ruined life of the poor Ms. Thompson. Nope, the problem, according to the Lords of State Street, is campaign financing in general and, somehow, Doyle in particular.

Apparently, the J-Sers took offense at Doyle’s badly-needed rip at the sensationalist media coverage of the case. "OK, Governor," they offer. "Tired of folks, the media included, noting that people who contribute often benefit?" Insert convenient reference to Troha indictment here. "If you are weary of this, help take away any possibility that such conclusions can be drawn. Push for campaign finance reform that includes sufficient public financing. Without this, there will be more such allegations in many politicians' futures."

Of all the important lessons about political prosecutors and ruined lives in this case, the J-S instead uses it to try to chide Doyle into supporting full public campaign financing. For one thing, they are suggesting a solution that will never happen. A state budget burdened with many more serious needs of its citizens will be hard pressed to find funds for political consultants and advertisers. And, with courts giving free reign to "independent" political expenditures as "free speech", public financing runs the risk of driving most political ad spending underground. If you don’t believe it, say hello to Justice Ziegler, brought to you by WMC and various other non-contributor-disclosing entities.

Instead of public financing, we have transparency, at least in the official campaigns. The legal Adelman contributions to Doyle were fully disclosed; the contract for state travel was public record. Conclusions can be drawn from the circumstances of any state contract. But when the perceptions of these necessary transactions are skewed by political prosecutors and the GOP echo chamber in wing-nut radio, how willing is the Journal Sentinel to be played? They didn’t seem to mind much when pay-for-play was really the rule under Tommy Thompson (the laughable presidential candidate that the J-S takes oh-so seriously). But, without the help of political prosecutors and radio loud-mouths in the ‘90s, I don’t remember the Journal or the Sentinel suggesting that Tommy had to accept public financing to save the image the paper decides to project for him.

Cynicism in public affairs is essential, but there must be distinctions made between that which happens in the normal course of state procurement and that which stinks. The Journal Sentinel continues to be played like a violin by a bunch of pipsqueaks with megaphones, some on their own radio stations. Wing-nut radio continues to be the tail that wags the dog.

And no tears from the Journal Sentinel for the manufactured tragedy that befell Georgia Thompson. Apparently, the destruction of lives and careers in the pursuit of political points is just fine with them.

Biskupic Wimps Out

When the end came for Steve Biskupic’s outrageous political prosecution of Georgia Thompson, he was nowhere to be found. He was elsewhere when three judges for the 7th Circuit ripped his hapless underling a new one, chasing him around the courtroom until he nearly ran out, screaming. Although Biskupic proudly persecuted this dedicated (not "life-long" -- thanks to comment below) civil servant and demanded that she go to prison before her appeal was final, he knew how bad his case and his conviction was. When the time came to fight for what he supposedly believed in, Steve Biskupic wimped out and stayed home.

The end came quickly, but not painlessly. From the comfort of his office, Biskupic sent out a three-sentence press release that announced the decision and Thompson's release and then said: "We commend the work of Thompson’s lawyers."

The 7th Circuit panel released her before the lawyers even left the building – their extremely rare order practically slapping the assistant U.S. attorney on the back on his way out – and this is the best Biskupic can do? No apology for the destruction of Thompson’s life and career, much less the four months she spent in a federal prison? No humility for the abuse of his extraordinary power to prosecute?

It should have been Biskupic there, not his assistant, getting his well-deserved comeuppance from the panel of judges. As an attorney who has been in similar situations, I often wince empathetically at the grilling an experienced panel can give a lawyer with a losing case. But Biskupic or any lawyer in his office who dared to show up to defend this sham of a prosecution deserved everything they got – and worse. All the judges did was ask the government questions they should have been asking themselves before they even thought about prosecuting poor Georgia Thompson.

Did she have any personal gain from the transaction? No. Did she even know Adelman had given money to Doyle? No. Under the government’s theory, if she had pushed for the selection of Adelman just because she liked the hair style of the person who made the presentation, is that criminal, too? Er, no, says the U.S. lawyer. Why is trying to please her boss any different? Um, because it is, I guess. Check out the audio here and skip to the last 15 minutes. Legal spankings are seldom this emphatic.

According to some of the e-mails in the fired U.S. attorney scandal currently boiling in Washington, Biskupic was on the hot seat last year for not being "tough" enough on the GOP’s bogus "voter fraud" agenda. No doubt he saved his job by going after this lowly state employee, giving valuable ammunition to the GOP and its wing-nut surrogates to paint Doyle as somehow ethically challenged in an election year. At this point, he and his handlers probably don’t even care that the conviction was tossed – the case had already served it intended purpose.

The Georgia Thompson case will forever point up the key fact driving Gonzo-Gate – U.S. Attorneys have extraordinary power to investigate, arrest, charge, prosecute and convict. Their appointments are, by nature, political. But the exercise of their duties should not be. Biskupic has prosecuted a lot of Democrats and not one Republican. He has always been a willing bagman for Karl Rove and the state and national GOP. If anyone in the current U.S. attorney corps needs to be relieved of his duties, it is Steve Biskupic.

Excuses for Ziegler; Smears for Clifford

Milwaukee wing-nut Charlie Sykes likes to brag about his use of the public airwaves to pervert democracy in Wisconsin. After every election, he brags about how (some of) the causes he champions by parroting GOP talking-points prevailed in elections big and small.

The erudite shill Sykes and other GOP-operatives disguised as "talk-radio hosts" may have another award to put on their built-on-public-airwaves trophy cases on Wednesday. Despite a historic indifference to the very basics of judicial ethics, damaged WMC candidate Annette Ziegler may well find herself on the Supreme Court. She may be the first judge in Wisconsin that won’t have to worry about being disciplined by the Judicial Commission because she already leap-frogged the process right to the Supremes.

With all the phony hand-wringing by the wing-nuts about the supposed crisis of ethics in Wisconsin government, you’d think they’d at least pretend that Ziegler ruling on dozens of cases in which she had a direct financial interest might be a legitimate issue. But, as always for the wing-nuts, that kind of consistency is for suckers. Seconds after the state GOP hits the "send" button on their twice-daily excuse-making, Clifford-smearing e-mails, the radio squawkers are out in full-force, providing hours of free advertising every day for the Ziegler campaign.

The unfortunate death of the Fairness Doctrine and the right-wing nuts’ "freedom" to express "their" opinions (someone let me know where the line forms for anyone of a different persuasion to exercise a similar "freedom" on a 50,000-watt station like TMJ) are one thing; outright campaigning on behalf of one candidate and, just as nefariously, against another during actual elections is quite something else. Although the current FCC would be a joke even if it did have a Fairness Doctrine to enforce, it certainly seems that the Ziegler campaign should have to report the hours of free support as in-kind contributions by the local stations that have chosen to walk the all-GOP-all-the-time party line. But, as in judicial ethics, following the law is...well, you're kidding, right?

Although the Ziegler campaign and her surrogate "independent" supporters such as WMC and the usual school-"choice" industry interlopers (with Ziegler, it is always hard to tell who is the surrogate – or puppet – for whom...wait, no it isn’t) blanketed the airwaves with actual paid commercials a month before Linda Clifford got anything out, Ziegler could not have withstood the barrage of bad ethics news without the support of her local buddies Charlie, Mark, Jessica, Jay, Jeff, et al, ad nauseam.

As they have for years with Bush, the major benefit provided to any GOP candidate by the extraordinarily pliant wing-nuts is two-fold: 1) making excuses for the documented incompetence/ethical lapses/bad behavior of their precious Republicans and 2) personally destroying anyone who dares to run against/criticize/investigate the same. The talking points are developed by the GOP and distributed to the radio clowns and they then all dutifully say the same things. Over and over. The lies become perceived as truth through sheer repetition by the most unoriginal, scripted radio voices since Bob Hope left for television.

Besides minimizing the clear ethics violations by Ziegler – I mean, why even bother trying to make small-claims cases fair...they are so...small – the GOP wing-nuts have gone after Clifford for remarkably silly things. First of all, they rant about how Clifford might be compromised in cases similar to the personal injury cases handled by her husband, without even seeing what cases she may or may not recuse herself from once she’s on the bench. Clifford says she will examine the issue case-by-case, which is exactly right. The list of businesses on the WMC's list of members that might have business before the bought-and-sold Ziegler if she gets on the court is a lot longer than Clifford's husband's client list. Oh, that's right. What does she care?

Then, playing the game of death-by-a-thousand cuts, the wing-nuts have brought us "concerned" discussions about a photographer being caught taking pictures (taking pictures!) of the Washington County Courthouse (the courthouse!) and saying he was a reporter when confronted by a Deputy Sheriff. Never mind why the deputy is out there harassing a photographer taking a photo of a public building or who might have sent him out there.

Finally, not to be outdone, newly-single Dan Bice (the "Ice Boy"?) got his solo wing-nut groove going by playing up some Zielger-generated tripe about a researcher hired by the Clifford campaign who apparently plagiarized some stuff when he worked for the Center for Public Integrity, behavior for which they say he was fired. According to the perfection-seeking Bice, Clifford was supposed to check more carefully on the background of the person checking on Ziegler’s background. The researcher came up with documentation of Ziegler’s many ethical challenges, including the many cases she handled involving the bank where her husband has a seat on the board. "As far as we know, he didn’t make any of it up," admits Bice. Really? So what’s the problem?

All this noise by the radio and print wing-nuts sets up the smoke in the background, solely for Ziegler’s benefit. The hours of carping about Clifford’s photographer outside the courthouse by the GOP radio surrogates means the Ziegler campaign can stay "above the fray", at least when she is not showing Clifford in front of a full moon with scary horror-movie headlines. The Clifford campaign doesn’t have to do that with Ziegler’s image on their ads – the tight-bunned official photo of Ziegler is scary enough.

Bringin’ It All Back Home

I first started blogging in February 2003. It was brought on by a combination of things: a desire to write, outrage with the Bush drive to war in Iraq and technology that was finally making it easier for laypersons to get out there and try to be heard.

With many in the media now recognizing -- without celebrating -- the anniversary of the disastrous invasion and occupation that began four years ago today, I thought I would look back at my small contribution to the discussion. Although I did not predict the sheer magnitude of the continuing tragedy that has been visited on us by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and company (in that order), I am not at all gratified to say that the millions of us who resisted the Stupid War were right.

One of the amazing things this far down the line is that the MSM and, certainly, the wing-nuts still give face time to pigs like Richard Pearle, who was on Meet the Press this weekend, pressing the case for more blood and death. People like him will always live in their ivory towers, counting their war profits and will never apologize for anything. People who were wrong about (at least) going along with the war, like most of the MSM and too many Democrats should apologize (yes, that means you, Hillary) and use everything in their growing power to extract us from this mess.

But some of us have nothing to apologize for.

From “Mike Plaisted’s Anti-War Blog” -- March 20, 2003:

WE'RE BIG, WE'RE BAD

Despite the attempts of religion and the military to claim that there is life after death -- be it in military "glory" or heaven -- there really isn't. Dead is dead. One of the most influential books I read growing up was "Johnny Got His Gun" by Dalton Trumbo. It should be required reading for anyone like Bush and Cheney and the rest of them, Vietnam war wimps who are now sending our sons and daughters into harm's way in the desert and cities of Iraq. The moral of the story -- mostly narrated by a torso, all that was left of the soldier in the story -- is that our brave soldiers do not die in the trenches thinking about the country they are fighting on behalf of or the proud leaders who sent them there. They die screaming for their mothers, father, husbands, wives, children, lovers, friends.

I thought about this morning, watching a typical military puff piece on the Today show about a husband and wife who were now in Kuwait while their five kids (five!) stayed back in the states. The couple seemed to be typical working-class kids of the type that are attracted to voluntary military service -- for what they perceive as a good job with lots of benefits that they need. The upshot is that they were trying to get out of the military sooner by taking these assignments together. But what if they are both killed? Those kids would then be orphaned for what? For Bush and his obscure family vengeance? Cheney/Rumsfeld, et.al. and their vision of world domination? Haliburton? "Sorry kids, but your parents died so that we can get more geopolitical leverage for our grander designs." Wha?

The best explanation of this previously incomprehensible drive for alliance-destroying war is the Crazy America theory. We are going into Iraq and kicking ass for the same reason we dropped atomic bombs in Japan as World War II was winding down. For the same reason Nixon and Kissinger considered dropping the bomb on Hanoi. We get more leverage in the world if the world thinks we are nuts. The atomic bombs dropped innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had little to do with Japan -- it was a signal to the USSR, the first shot in the Cold War, that we had the bomb and were crazy enough to use it. By driving into Iraq, the Bushies are telling the world that they don't care about world opinion or silly diplomatic niceties. We're big, now we're bad. Get used to it.

Let's say (and, at this point, let's hope) that the military part of this war is quick. It won't be painless for many, but let's say "not many" US soldiers or Iraqis die (and watch for the sliding-scale spin on what's defined as "not many"). Pick your favorite Bush rosy scenario. Even if "successful" by those terms, the Bush's version of the US is still criminal in starting the war, still imperialist in the outrageous intent to mold this sovereign country to its own designs. Add this crime to the list of the genocide of the Native American, slavery and its aftermath, dropping atomic bombs in Japan, etc. For the first time, the US, on its own, has invaded a foreign country for the sole purpose of taking out and reconstructing its government. I'm sorry, but this is the same sort of shit Hilter did -- and he used the ruse of German security to justify it.

There. I said it.

Which brings us to people saying things at this point in time. Tom Daschle has been excoriated by the Bushies and other radical right-wingers for making some very mild comments about the failure of diplomacy. Other Dems are unlikely to stick their necks out, since they usually play too fair. Why do the Dems always think they have to play fair? Could you imagine what would be happening if Clinton dragged us into this thing against all world opinion and against the Security Council? This whole "our disagreements end at the water's edge" thing should get chucked out with everything other old "20th century" practice the Bushies seem to be throwing out the window. The Dems should be telling the world to hang tight for a couple of years until they can get back in and straighten out this mess.

Now that we have seen the first arrests of anti-war protesters, the rest of us will be looking over our shoulders for the likes of John Ashcroft to find a way to prevent us from "giving aid and comfort", or whatever. I wouldn't put it past these people to label an anti-war activist or two as "enemy combatants" and lock them up for the duration, without charges. But I'll keep plugging along here for the sake of my five readers. Three of whom probably work for the FBI.

****

A Plaisted Blog History: From 2003 to February 2005, I had a blog in the Salon community, variously titled Anti-War Blog, Beat Bush in ‘04 Blog, Bush Surrogate Watch, and Mondo Media, which was the name of my media column in the Daily Cardinal in the early '80s. The blog was notoriously ignored (7 or 8 hits for most posts) and I stopped in February 2005 when my Salon blog subscription expired. Anyway, I was depressed about the 2004 election results and lost my energy. Highlights included my trip to the Democratic convention in ‘04 and my final post, a eulogy of the great-but-wasted Hunter S. Thompson. I put up a permanent link to my old stuff over there on the right. Apparently, blogs are forever.

Mark Green: Sore Loser

The saga of the dirty money that Mark Green tried to sneak in from his federal coffers has ended with another sound Green defeat. On Friday, Green and the Elections Board reached a “settlement” of their “dispute” over $467,844 that Green illegally transferred from his federal account and tried to use in his state campaign. Green and his henchmen have apparently decided that they have soaked as much wing-nut talking-points as they could from their phony appeal and, like the brave men they are, turned tail and ran.

I don't want to say "I told you so"...No, I do. From my October 26th post:

“The fact is that Green campaign has known from the beginning that the $460,000 was gone. They have been playing for time for months: 1) pretending that it was somehow arguable that he should be able to use the money, 2) claiming that Doyle "rigged" the Elections Board vote, 3) lost the request of a restraining order from a Dane County judge (who certainly would have granted it if the Board was "rigged"), 4) voluntarily dismissed their own case, and 5) appealed their own voluntary dismissal to the Supreme Court. About the "appeal", Green tells the Journal Sentinel ‘I have no idea what's going on…’”

In other words, despite all their huffing-and-puffing about the “injustice” of it all, the Greenies knew they were legally wrong, but continued to churn the issue, filing frivolous appeals with no intention of ever having the Supreme Court hear the issue, and, in the meantime, using the “issue” as another one of their phony “dirty Doyle” smears. As it turns out, the Elections Board got it right, and, regardless of how he spins it, by accepting the “settlement” with the Board this past Friday, Green admits as much.

Saying that they had “agreed to disagree about the law”, the Elections Board said in a statement: “The settlement prohibits Green from using the disputed funds to run for office, but allows him to pay legal fees and make contributions to other candidates for office.” So, he can’t use the dirty money in any future campaign (one shudders to think of him running for anything again) and he gets to use the money to pay the legal bills he rang up by filing the phony appeals in the first place. As for giving to other campaigns, it appears the dirty money would then be that candidate’s problem. Don’t expect Green’s phone to be ringing off the hook by candidates seeking to have Green dump his dirty money problems on them.

This is exactly the result that would have occurred if the Elections Board would have prevailed in the Supreme Court (except, maybe, the payment of those all-important attorney fees). You would think, then, that Green might be humbled by such an event and, perhaps, even apologize for wasting everyone’s time. You would be wrong. A class act all the way, Loser Green issued a statement: “The decision by the Elections Board last fall has now been exposed as nothing more than a crass manipulation of a governmental agency by Jim Doyle in his desperate effort to hold on to power…I am gratified that the Elections Board itself has been eliminated. No other candidate will ever again receive the kind of unfair treatment I received from what was supposed to be an impartial body.”

Good grief. If the decision of the Board was the result of such a “crass manipulation”, why would Green accept a settlement that gave him nothing? What kind of “unfair treatment” can there be if the Board got it right? You would think by this desperate spin that Green won not only the case, but the election. He lost both, of course, and deservedly so. And he continues to whine about it.

Green is lucky he has now-confirmed Bush hack Steve Biskupic in the U.S. Attorney’s office. If Green had pulled this stunt as a Democrat, he would surely be prosecuted by GOP operative Biskupic for transferring the money out of his federal account the way he did in the first place -- after all, the Elections Board was interpreting federal law when they made their correct ruling.

As for the Journal Sentinel, which has provided several opportunities for Green to whine about his election thumping and the sad unavailability of his dirty money, it ran the Green defeat-by-settlement story in the second section this Saturday morning. This is after the blazing “Green to Appeal” headline across the front page when the Elections Board first made its ruling before the election. Even six months after the election, bad-for-Green stories get buried and the lies get a head start before the truth gets its boots on. In all this time, the J-S has never called out Green’s dirty money transfer as the blatant violation of the law it was. Maybe now they can editorialize about how the Elections Board bravely protected the election process from the dirty money Green tried to drag in here from Washington.

I won’t hold my breath.

Steve Biskupic: No Worries, Duh!

When Karl Rove and Harriet Miers were looking for the heads of U.S. Attorneys to put on a spike in 2005 and 2006, you can probably guess their reaction when they came to the man heading up the office in Eastern Wisconsin. “Ah, Biskupic!” you can imagine Rove exclaiming, his eyes glazing over in the rapture of the U.S Attorney of his dreams. “Yes, Biskupic,” the non-Supreme Court Justice Miers would say, confirming legally what Rove sensed in his manipulative heart. “He’s a good one.” “Yesss,” Rove would sigh. “He’s a good boy. Good Boy!”

Whether by direction, design or just plain old predisposition, Steve Biskupic has walked the political walk for Junior Bush since he was appointed by the Decider in 2002. Whether it’s going after Democratic alderman for buying themselves groceries, civil servants working for a Democratic governor, contributors to the same Democratic governor and investigating non-existent “voter fraud” (the very definition of an elephant laboring for months and bearing a mouse), Biskupic has been Johnny-on-the-Spot for the Bushies‘ political agenda.

Oh, and never mind those Republicans who happen to find themselves on the knife’s edge of investigation and possible illegality. For instance, Biskupic was supposedly investigating some monkey-business between Scott Walker and indicted former Tommy Thompson cabana-boy Nick Hurtgen. The result? Uh, nothing to see here, everyone move along. He also conveniently bailed from the prosecution of the Republican District Attorney in Winnebago County, Joseph Paulus, who has since convicted of bribery and is now in federal prison. His brother happened to work for Paulus. Maybe the reason Biskupic never goes after Republicans is because, if you swing a stick in his house or his office or his country club, you’ll hit five or six of them. Just guessing here.

In the Journal Sentinel today, Biskupic does an interesting thing; answering a question nobody asked him.

"I received no communication, either negative or positive, from the attorney general's office or the White House regarding the voter fraud cases. The first I learned that there had been criticism was in published reports on Wednesday. During my time as U.S. attorney, the only case that I have been asked to discuss with the attorney general was the civil rights investigation of the beating of Frank Jude, Jr."

Assuming the issue he is trying to address is possible political influence in and on his office, you can file this under the Nixonian category of the “non-denial denial”. First of all, who would have to talk to him about the phony voter fraud investigation? He's done such a good job driving the GOP agenda on his own. Just by picking it up and churning it for a couple of months after the 2004 election, he was doing GOP legwork -- giving the false impression of a problem while the Republicans were busy trying to suppress the vote with voter ID and anything else they can find.

[Aside: I have always found it amazing that Republicans have the nerve to squawk about “voter fraud” after what they pulled in Florida in 2000. They showed such a cynical disrespect to the sanctity of the vote by shutting down the recount, they are the last people who should have anything to say about what is or is not a legitimate election.]

Notice that, in his statement, Biskupic does not deny that political influence has anything to do with his ridiculous imprisonment of poor civil servant Georgia Thompson and his latest indirect attack on Jim Doyle, the Troha indictment. Almost the entire GOP strategy in their failed campaign for governor was to smear Doyle with Biskupic-driven innuendo, as is their current campaign to prevent Doyle from doing anything positive for the state. Although the case i over and the poor woman is in prison, Biskupic’s favorite phrase in the Thompson persecution is that “the investigation is continuing” a fact which wing-nuts celebrate like the rising sun everyday.

And the Troha indictment, as GOP shills brag, mentions Doyle 14 times, without bothering to mention that a Republican Congressman, Paul Ryan, also benefited from Troha’s clumsy and desperate largess (at least he got something from Ryan -- a call supporting the Kenosha casino to the federal agency responsible for the review).

And, what was said by whom to whom about the Jude cops prosecutions? Does he think influence on his office by politicians is acceptable just because it involves the complaints of a black man against white cops? Is there some reason the politicians contacting him would want the prosecutions -- perhaps a safe way to pretend Republicans give a damn or (more likely) to make former DA Mike McCann look bad?

You can bet that Biskupic will continue to be useful to Karl Rove’s Permanent Campaign of personal destruction, dancing around the fringes of Jim Doyle’s employees and contributors for the benefit of the GOP and wing-nut radio entertainment. After the review that Rove and Miers ran on his vote-fraud-wimpy colleagues, resulting in the sacking of eight of them, he can rest easy for now.

But he'll have to find something else to do in January 2009 when there is a New Decider and someone with integrity -- like the excellent Clinton appointment in 1993, Tom Schneider -- will come back in, close down the political sideshows and stop doing the dirty business of the dirtiest administration in U.S. history.