Blogging Blue

For as bad as Wisconsin’s 5.4 billion dollar budget deficit is, things could be worse, as evidenced by California’s massive budget deficit:

The state faces a $28 billion budget shortfall over the next two years. If nothing is done, nearly $5 billion in public-works projects could be halted in little more than a week for lack of bond sales – everything from bridge replacements to a new highway tunnel and billions of dollars’ worth of school construction, according to state Treasurer Bill Lockyer.

Now a 28 billion dollar budget shortfall is bad, but the news gets worse:

The picture worsens next spring if legislators don’t pass some plan to increase revenues or cut spending or both. California will run out of operating cash in March, state controller John Chiang told the lawmakers. The recession has severely squeezed state tax revenues.

Lawmakers in California and Wisconsin have blamed the economic downturn for worsening the budget deficits in both states, but I’m just glad I don’t live in California, considering the fact that there’s been no talk of Wisconsin running out of operating cash at any point in the near future.

NIGHT 1:
First thought - there’s a reason these folks aren’t speaking in prime time. Boy, there’s some really terrible public speakers in the group, and it makes me wonder how some of these folks got elected to public office.

Next thought - Alexi Gainnoulis (Illinois State Treasurer) might be the exception. He gave a nice speech. Short, but well executed. State treasurer probably isn’t his last stop in public office.

Final though - Michele Obama gave a good speech. It was pitch-perfect and sent the right message. It really went a long way towards softening her image.

NIGHT 2:

First thought - Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle’s speech was passable. His speech wasn’t anything special, but he certainly wasn’t as bad as some of the folks I’ve watched. Rep. Tammy Baldwin wasn’t bad either, but again, nothing special.

Next thought - Sen. Hillary Clinton’s speech was absolutely perfect, and it was in my opinion the best speech I’ve seen her give. She cemented her status within the Democratic Party with this speech.

NIGHT 3:

First thought - Brian Schweitzer’s speech was good, but I was really bothered by his body language. He reminded me too much of a bobblehead, and if he’s going to “take it to the next level,” someone needs to tell him to tone down his body language.

Next thought - John Kerry’s speech was a great indictment of Sen. John McCain. I didn’t think Sen. Kerry had that much fight in him, given how he rolled over and allowed himself to be swiftboated in the last election, but he really surprised me.

Another thought - Now I have to preface this by disclosing that I’ve always been a fan of Former President Bill Clinton, but I thought his speech was spot-on. He was unequivocal in voicing his opinion that Sen. Obama is ready to lead, and hopefully this speech will help put to rest the grumblings about party disunity.

Here’s a clip of President Clinton in action:

Last thought - Joe Biden’s speech was a great example of why he was picked to be VP. Sure, his speech wasn’t as rhetorically powerful as Hillary Clinton’s on night 2, but Biden showed the humility, sense of humor, and wit that this campaign really needs.

NIGHT 4:

First thought - I thought Al Gore’s speech was good but not great. Perhaps if the Al Gore of 2008 had been around in 2000, we would not have had to endure 8 years of President Bush.

Next thought - I liked the video montage of Obama that was shown right before his speech. In my opinion it did a lot to show Obama as more of an “average guy” as opposed to the elitist candidate that Republicans are furiously trying to paint him as.

Final thought - Obviously I think Senator Barack Obama gave the speech of his life. I thought his 2004 convention speech was tremendous, but this speech far surpassed that. I was glad to see Obama lay out some specific policy plans while not shying away from hitting John McCain, especially for McCain being out of touch with average Americans.

Here’s one of my favorite segments of Obama’s speech tonight:

Just two weeks ago, the federal government released results of a study it completed regarding the frequency of drunk driving in Wisconsin. According to the study, more than 25% of adults in Wisconsin drive under the influence of alcohol, putting Wisconsin at number one in the nation when it comes to people who admit to driving drunk.

Fresh off the heels of that report being released came the terrible tragedy of Jennifer Bukosky, who along with two of her children was killed by Mark Benson. At the time of the accident that killed Bukosky, Benson was driving without a license and while under the influence of at least three different prescribed medications, and only two days before the crash, Benson had been in court pleading guilty to a 2007 drunken driving conviction, his third, in Brookfield. He was ordered April 23 to not drive and was sentenced to 75 days in the county’s work release jail, but was given until May 9 to report there.

The fact that Benson was still driving despite having just been convicted of his third OWI is simply outrageous, but thankfully lawmakers are already starting to take notice that Wisconsin is at a crossroads when it comes to how we handle repeat drunk drivers. Today Governor Jim Doyle announced that he believes a third conviction for intoxicated use of a vehicle should be made a felony. Lawmakers have already started to take action, with some calling for revocation of driving privileges and confiscation of vehicles for people convicted of a third offense of driving under the influence.

I’ve always felt Wisconsin needed to do a much better job of being tough on drunk drivers, especially repeat offenders, because a car isn’t much different than a loaded gun in the hands of a drunk driver. People can be - and have been - seriously injured or killed at the hands of folks driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and it’s time lawmakers took a tough stand. I’ve never been a strong advocate of depriving folks of property as the result of their criminal activities, but in this case I think someone who’s been convicted multiple times for drunk driving should face the possibility of losing their vehicle forever. It’s a steep price to pay, but perhaps it’ll serve as a deterrent.

Patrick over at Badger Blogger has more on this issue, as does Cindy over at Fairly Conservative

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I intensely dislike State Supreme Court candidate Michael Gableman, and while my dislike is in part due to my ideological differences with Gableman, much of my dislike towards the man has to do with the stunning scope of his hypocritical and unethical behavior, both during the campaign and prior to him receiving his appointment as a Burnett County Circuit Court judge.

Gableman, who promised to run a clean campaign, has unveiled his newest attack ad against incumbent Louis Butler, and already the ad is drawing intense criticism for its not so subtle racist undertones, as well as its gross distortion of facts surrounding a case Louis Butler handled as a criminal defense attorney. At issue is the ad’s assertion that Louis Butler helped free a convicted sex offender on appeal, only to have that same defendant re-offend once he was freed. However, the truth of the situation is that while Butler did help the defendant in question win an appeal, the defendant’s conviction was upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, resulting in the individual in question serving out the remainder of his sentence before being released from prison. It was only after he was released from prison that the individual reoffended.

Governor Jim Doyle said the ad from Gableman’s campaign was the lowest he’s ever seen a judicial candidate go, and the Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee also issued a statement calling the ad highly offensive and deliberately misleading before calling for the ad to be taken off the air:

“We believe Judge Gableman is deliberately misrepresenting the facts regarding this case and Justice Butler’s role in it, and it appears Judge Gableman is doing so either knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of his campaign statement,”

As I watched the ad - which I’ve included a little bit later in this entry - I couldn’t help but wonder about a fact that seems to escape Michael Gableman and his supporters: Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justices don’t lock criminals up, so being “tough on crime” isn’t as big a deal as it would be if Gableman were running for Circuit Court judge back in Burnett County. Then again, with Gableman’s record when it comes to being “tough on crime,” I can’t blame him for looking for a different job. As Sam Sarver from Brazen Maverick said,

That way, he (Gableman) wouldn’t have to deal with all the nuance and subtlety of the State Supreme Court, for which he obviously lacks sufficient patience.

I’d argue Gableman also lacks sufficient skill and intelligence to sit on the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, but Sam’s got a point.

For those interested, here’s the ad in question:

H/T to Sam over at Brazen Maverick and the ever-amazing illusory tenant.

Shame on him for caving in and allowing mandatory health insurance coverage for autism treatment to be cut from the budget “compromise” reached late yesterday. It’s really a sad day when politicians are so readily willing to make treatment for autistic kids a political issue, and it’s a sad day when Democrats are so quick to give up on the issue just so they can say they got a budget deal done.

In a multi-billion dollar state budget, mandating insurance companies provide coverage for autism treatment would have cost 1.3 million dollars, and I can’t help but wonder if that’s money that couldn’t have been cut from somewhere else.

I’m actually disappointed I had faith in Governor Doyle and all his talk about helping autistic kids.

Earlier today, State Senator Lena Taylor announced she is running for Milwaukee County Executive, confirming what’s been one of Southeastern Wisconsin’s worst-kept secrets. Even though her announcement is less than twelve hours old, Taylor’s already begun picking up support from prominent Democrats, with Governor Jim Doyle calling Taylor a “great candidate.” In addition, State Democratic Party Chair Joe Wineke has said he plans on endorsing Taylor within the next few days.

I think this is going to be one of the more entertaining races to watch during the 2008 election season, with Taylor and incumbent County Executive Scott Walker holding starkly contrasting positions on many of the issues that will no doubt be at the forefront of the race. Walker and his supporters will no doubt attempt to paint Taylor as a “tax and spend liberal” - and in fact that drumbeat has already started over at Badger Blogger. To be honest, if I were a conservative - and thank God I’m not - I’d be worried about Lena Taylor running against Scott Walker, because I’m willing to bet she’s going to be able to mobilize City of Milwaukee voters to cast their votes for her, and without a significant amount of votes from the City of Milwaukee, Scott Walker can kiss this race goodbye. If I were Lena Taylor, I’d spend some time talking about Scott Walker’s record of deception, from his promise not to run in 2008 to his veto of a voter referendum on taxes, after he previously said he supported referendums. Scott Walker’s a liar and a terrible County Executive, and I I think Scott Walker’s got little chance of prevailing.

However, if there’s an upside for Walker in losing to Lena Taylor, at least he’ll have plenty of free time to plan his run to succeed Jim Sensenbrenner as the U.S. Congressman for the Fifth Congressional District.

As reported first by Xoff, David Clarke’s apparently changed his tune in a big way when it comes to allowing folks here in Wisconsin to carry concealed weapons. Back in 2003, Clarke supported a ban on concealed weapons, going so far as to urge Governor Jim Doyle to veto a measure that would have lifted the ban. Back when he supported keeping the ban in place, Clarke cited concerns about the safety of his deputies and what would happen if there were a “flood” of dangerous weapons to Milwaukee’s streets. As recently as last fall, in his campaign to be re-elected as Milwaukee County Sheriff, Clarke remained opposed to overturning Wisconsin’s ban on carrying concealed weapons. Sheriff Clarke’s flip-flop came to light in an email he sent to Charlie Sykes blasting Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Governor Jim Doyle, and State Senator Spencer Coggs, among others, for all that ails Milwaukee’s inner city. What I’m left to wonder is if Sheriff Clarke, as an elected official and Milwaukee’s “top cop” is willing to accept any blame for the state of the City.

Obviously this is just a prelude to David Clarke running for mayor, but I can’t help but wonder what accomplishments David Clarke has as sheriff that make him a better candidate for mayor than Tom Barrett. What’s he done to distinguish himself, besides kissing the collective asses of the local right wing radio nuts?

My new favorite Republican lawmaker (as if I have many) is Republican State Senator Carol Roessler of Oshkosh. Senator Roessler is the first Republican to “fly the coop,” breaking with Assembly Republicans on spending cuts they want to make in state prisons and in the reserve fund used to give state employees pay raises. Senator Roessler’s break from the Republican Party line makes a state employee like yours truly very happy.

Senator Roessler said Senate Republicans should not agree to the Assembly GOP’s plan to hire private companies to provide medical care for inmates, to not hire 50 new prison guards and to abolish the jobs of 40 jobs of prison unit managers. Considering Senator Roessler’s district includes Oshkosh Correctional Institution and a number of other correctional centers, it’s nice to see she came down on the side of so many of her constituents in rejecting a budget that would have had a negative impact on many state employees.

Hopefully this is just the first Republican defection, because there has to come a point where Republicans finally realize no matter how hard they fight they’re not going to win the budget battle. Sure, they may win a few small victories here and there, but they’re not going to win the larger fight, especially not with Governor Jim Doyle wielding the famed “Frankenstein Veto”.

Click here to see the text of Senator Roessler’s letter to Republican Senate leader Scott Fitzgerald

The MJS is reporting Governor Jim Doyle will propose closing the so-called “gun show loophole” as part of an anti-crime package he will present to the Legislature for consideration this fall. Here’s a list of the rest of Governor Doyle’s proposals:

• Allowing Wisconsin to contribute information to a national database that help increase monitoring of individuals who have been civilly committed or prohibited by a court from using a firearm. This would prevent people from traveling to a state where their background is unavailable to purchase a firearm and coming back to Wisconsin to commit a crime, Doyle said.
• Rolling back a 1995 law that erased all local ordinances related to firearms. Doyle said denied municipalities and counties from enacting any new laws that would be more restrictive than state statutes.
• Tracking guns used in multiple crimes by requiring ballistic fingerprinting, matching the marks made by a bullet when fired from a gun with marks on the inside of the barrel of the gun. He said that would create a trail for law enforcement to track down both guns and criminals.
• Prohibiting possession or purchase of a gun by anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor that involved a firearm.
• Banning the sale of handguns to people under 21, except for licensed purposes or weapons passed down through families, such as hunting heirlooms.

Of course, I expect the gun crazy conservatives will be all over this news like flies on dung, and no doubt they’ll scream about how Jim Doyle wants to take away guns so no one has them except criminals. There’ll be much gnashing of conservative teeth, and I imagine hilarity will ensue as wingnut bloggers all over the Cheddarsphere spin their tales of doom and gloom. Personally, I think a lot of the measures proposed by Governor Doyle make a heck of a lot of sense, and I can’t help but wonder what took so long to propose them.

EDIT: It didn’t take long for the wingnuts over at Badger Blogger to start frothing at the mouth over Doyle’s plan. Go take a look…hilarity is ensuing!

Earlier today Governor Jim Doyle was cleared of any wrongdoing in the 2005 sale of the Kewaunee nuclear power plant. The sale of that plant became the subject of an investigation after it was revealed utility company executives had given more than $43,000 to Doyle’s re-election campaign just prior to the approval of the sale by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. Shortly after the revelations came to light, former Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager opened an investigation into whether Governor Doyle’s office improperly influenced the Public Service Commission in its deliberations about the proposed sale of the Kewaunee power plant. This investigation became the subject of more than one attack ad against Governor Doyle during the gubernatorial race in 2006, with some citing the investigation - along with the prosecution of high-ranking state employee Georgia Thompson - serving as proof of how corrupt the Doyle administration supposedly was. Georgia Thompson’s federal conviction has since been overturned, and now we have this decision by the Wisconsin Department of Justice that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the Governor in the sale of the Kewaunee nuclear power plant.

In a statement released by the Wisconsin Department of Justice, Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen cleared Governor Doyle of any wrongdoing, saying:

“After a thorough investigation, we have not found any evidence linking campaign donations to Governor Doyle to the PSC decision to approve the sale of the Kewaunee nuclear power plant. Nor did we find any evidence that the governor’s office improperly influenced the PSC decision in any way.”

I give Attorney General Van Hollen credit for doing his job and seeing this investigation through to completion, as well as for his unwillingness to make a case out of nothing.