"Politics of Fear": Darn Right

From the NY Times:

As she sought to spark a comeback in the Democratic nominating contest, Mrs. Clinton warned voters not to “take a leap of faith or have any guesswork” when they cast ballots Tuesday.

The Obama campaign accused her of employing “the politics of fear.”

I am the last person who is going to defend Hillary Clinton, but Obama's response is interesting.

Liberals frequently use the phrase "politics of fear" when conservatives want to implement policies to fight terrorism, to ban gay marriage or to protect us from violent criminals. However, they never use that term for their own policies.

Don't liberals employ the "the politics of fear" when they try to convince us that the Earth is in danger from man made global warming? Or when they argue that practical safety measures will be the first step toward removing our civil liberties?

Both sides employ the politics of fear. It makes sense to some degree. Government's primary role is to keep us safe. Of course, it becomes little more than pandering when politicians overstate their case, but demagoguery has been a part of politics at least since the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Aristotle tried to classify the fallacies of orators and politicians over 2,300 years ago.

But to dismiss fears is another form of fallacy. There is nothing logical or rational about ignoring those things which most concern voters or society as a whole.

We are going to hear a lot about the "politics of fear" from now until November. If so, great. If Hillary's comments were the "politics of fear," I hope and trust that McCain will try to scare the heck out of us. Obama scares the heck out of me (although Hillary does not exactly give me the warm fuzzies either).

Applying for a Job: You're Excited?

A quick tip for those of you applying for a job: never, ever use the word "excited" in your cover letter (unless you're a porn star).

I spent a great deal of time over the past few days reviewing dozens of resumes and related materials. Some idiot somewhere told these kids that they need to convey enthusiasm. So, about half of the cover letters begin something like this: "I was excited to learn that [insert company name] is looking for [insert job description]."

Employers want to hire practical, hard working, level-headed, smart people. Excited and excitable people need not apply.

PS There are lots of other ridiculous things people say in these letters, and they are from some really smart people. For example:

• "I am sincerely interested..." Are your other expressions insincere?
• "Enclosed please find..." Is your stuff hidden?
• "My passion for [insert job field]..." Come on, are you that geeky?

Doyle Announces That Wisconsin Government is Overtaxing Residents by at Least $100 Million

From the Governor's Press Office this week:

Governor Jim Doyle today announced the recipients of more than $100 million worth of affordable housing tax credits throughout the state...

Wisconsin has about 5.6 million people. That means that we are spending about $17.86 per person. I support three people. That means I am contributing a little over $50. I want it back.

CC's Wisconsin Hall of Fame #5: Who is He?

HINT #1: Integrated circuit.

Another Best of the Blogs Omission Corrected: James T. Harris

Love him or hate him, there is no denying that James T. Harris speaks his mind and brings a unique perspective to the Milwaukee political discourse. I have been a fan ever since a friend of mine was harassed for reading James' "Ten Commandments for Economic Justice in Milwaukee in public.

He should have been on the "Best of the Blogs" list long ago. He is now.

By the way, check out his current post "Geraldine Ferraro was right?" Great stuff.

Beware: What John McCain Wants to Give Back, Jim Doyle Will Try to Take Away

Presidential candidate John McCain proposed, in a speech at Carnegie Mellon University this morning, that the federal government help to stimulate the economy by not collecting gasoline taxes from Memorial Day to Labor Day. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon (24.4 cents per gallon of diesel). A good idea.

But beware. Considering the state's budget shortfall, and Jim Doyle's penchant for raising gas taxes, it would come as no surprise if Doyle or his friends in the Senate push to increase the state's gas tax by the amount of the savings. After all, the result would be a no net loss to Wisconsin consumers. It would, however, push Wisconsin from the 8th highest taxing state when it comes to gas taxes to the highest.

McCain's Senate colleagues should ensure that any such legislation offered in the Senate contains a provision that the gas tax moratorium would not apply in any state that raises its own gas tax in the year of the moratorium. McCain's proposal is intended as an economic stimulus, not a federal revenue sharing program.

Perhaps We Should All Write-In "God"

James Taranto makes a truly profound comment.

The comment that impressed me most is in the midst of a post in which he, like so many others, takes Obama to task for belittling people of faith, gun owners and people who have strong views on illegal immigration and other cultural issues. Of course, as he usually does, Taranto articulates this much better than everyone else. I won't add more to it except to note, as I did in the following post, that Obama is out of touch and way outside the mainstream of American thought. Each of us should fear a candidate who has so little respect for so many (I believe the majority) of Americans.

What I want to point out, however, is this gem buried in Taranto's piece:

Obama said in Indiana, "They don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody's going to help them." He went on to explain that they should vote for him because if elected, unlike all previous presidents of either party, he will improve their material well-being.

Obama's promise rests on a false premise: that it is within the power of the president to restore the Rust Belt's luster. Every incumbent president in living memory has sought at least one additional term, and the Keystone State has for decades been a key electoral battleground, both large and closely contested. If presidents had the power to make Pennsylvania's declining towns wealthy, don't you think one of them would have done so by now?

In truth, the decline of industries is simply a fact of life, like old age, sickness and death. Yet just as new generations supersede the old, a free economy produces innovation that gives rise to new industries. And while some places have declined, the nationwide economy has grown impressively for most of the past quarter-century.

If politicians could come to grips with this concept - that they can't control or manage the forces of the economy and, with respect to most matters of the market, they are powerless except to screw things up even more - we would be more free and more successful. Freedom and success lead directly to fairness and compassion.

Those Stupid, Narrow-Minded Religious Rubes...

I don't as a general rule discuss social issues on this site. But I do cover elections. Can a politician do anything more stupid (yet alone more bigoted) than criticizing working families for having religious beliefs?

What was Obama thinking? He really is that out of touch, isn't he?

I have never been a Clinton fan, and question their honesty, but I have always believed the Clintons generally fall somewhere within the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Obama once again is proving that he is way outside the rather broad confines of mainstream.

Sheldon Wasserman: A Winner and Loser in April's Election

Last week, voters convincingly took away the Governor's Frankenstein veto after years of abuse.

Prior to announcing he was running against Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), Rep. Sheldon Wasserman opposed attempts to put the Frankenstein veto issue on the ballot. After announcing that he was running, Wasserman supported the constitutional amendment to remove this gubernatorial power.

Darling issued a press release a few months ago pointing out this flip-flop. If her campaign proves to be adept, and I expect it will (even Democrats admit that Darling's campaigns have been well-run), we will hear more about this issue as the election approaches.

Wasserman's fiscal conservatism has been, at best, opportunistic. Voters will see through the veneer of this election-time facade Wasserman has tried to build.

Liberal Blogs I Read

I added a new feature tonight. A (rather short) list of liberal blogs I read. There is a benefit to reading with the "other side" is saying (even when it is only an angry rant or a personal attack).

I read more than the four I posted; however, some of them are hard to take seriously. I think the four I selected are fairly representative.

Democrats and Darling's Health: Is This the Kind of Sleaze We Can Expect?

According to MJS:

[A] news item in Milwaukee Magazine ... reported that [Darling] was "struggling" with health problems. When the item appeared, Darling said, she asked the magazine to give her side, so the magazine did an online update quoting Darling as saying she is in good health and will "campaign aggressively for re-election."

"I haven't talked about (her health), and I didn't even know that Senator Darling had breast cancer," Decker said.

The Milwaukee Magazine story was mentioned at an April 2 briefing the Wisconsin State Senate Democratic Committee had for about 90 lobbyists who are interested in the campaign, said Jason Childress, director of the Senate Democrats' campaign committee.

During a presentation on the race, Childress said, either he or political director Kory Kozloski mentioned the article in passing during a discussion about Wasserman's campaign efforts and work ethic. Childress also sent an e-mail to a couple hundred lobbyists with a reference and link to the magazine story.

Darling said she later called Decker to ask why Democrats were using false health rumors against her. Childress said the committee won't raise the issue again.

It is shameful they raised it in the first place.

Darling had breast cancer seven years ago, and back surgery 13 years ago. Anyone who has seen her in the past few years knows she is fit as a fiddle. She is only 63 years old. She trained for a marathon, walks in parades and makes numerous appearances. Like her or not, she is certainly physically capable.

Besides the falsity of the rumor, do Democrats really believe that having had breast cancer is a negative? Has anyone noticed that breast cancer research is a favorite charity of the North Shore?

Spreading rumors about non-existent health issues is way beyond sleazy. Attacking a woman for having had, and survived, breast cancer is just plain dumb. If Democrats run that kind of campaign, it will certainly backfire.

Wisconsin Halls of Fame: When You Have a "Rest Area Maintenance Program Hall of Fame," What Else Do You Need?

I have been posting pictures of famous Wisconsinites and asking readers to guess their identities. When there are no guesses, I give hints. The first three have been identified. The fourth has had no guesses (even though, for bloggers, he is darn important).

I debated what to name my list. With some trepidation, I settled on CC's Wisconsin Hall of Fame. People have become accustomed to "Halls of Fame" for lists of historic figures (even when there is no hall).

But is the phrase over-used? I searched to find Halls of Fame located (either actually or figuratively) in Wisconsin. Was I surprised.

Various groups try to honor the people from Wisconsin who have made their little corner of the world better. Some of those efforts are admirable, while some are simply silly. How many of these "Halls of Fame" have you visited, or even heard of?

Wisconsin Association of Future Farmers of America Hall of Fame
Wisconsin Athletic Hall of Fame
Wisconsin Auctioneer's Association Hall of Fame
Wisconsin Aviation Hall of Fame
Wisconsin Baseball Coaches Hall of Fame
Wisconsin Broadcasters Hall of Fame
Wisconsin Conservation Hall of Fame
Wisconsin Football Coaches Hall of Fame
Wisconsin Golf Hall of Fame
Wisconsin Harness Racing Hall of Fame
Wisconsin Hockey Hall of Fame
Wisconsin Meat Industry Hall of Fame
Wisconsin Pet Hall of Fame
Wisconsin Polka Hall of Fame
Wisconsin's Rest Area Maintenance Program Hall of Fame
Wisconsin Soccer Association Hall of Fame
Wisconsin Amateur Softball Association Hall of Fame

And that is just a partial list.

We also have Halls of Fame that portend to be national or international in scope, or that honor particular industries or activities beyond the boundaries of Wisconsin, including:

Forestry Hall of Fame
International Clown Hall of Fame
National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame
Paper Industry Hall of Fame
Snowmobile Hall of Fame
Wood Tick Hall of Fame

Of course, there is one Hall of Fame that, for most of us, is a true shrine to greatness:

Green Bay Packer Hall of Fame

Most of these places, however, honor the big fish in their own small ponds. Wisconsin seems to forget that it has a rich history of truly great people. We forgot to honor many of them, and some of them we have totally forgotten. That is why the Croc has established CC's Wisconsin Hall of Fame.

Credit for Eugene Kane Where Credit is Due (Sort Of)

Eugene Kane wrote a rather poignant article today in which he notes that the failure of Wisconsin black students is not just a failure of the kids, but also of the parents and teachers of those kids. He is right, although I am a bit more forgiving of the teachers. There are good teachers, but they are operating in a bloated system with many students who don't want to be there and parents who, unlike Kane's own parents, do not insist on achievement. But there is no doubt that the biggest influence in any child's life is her or her parents and, if they insist on success, the odds of success are much higher.

Kane, of course, couldn't write an entire column without taking a swipe at white conservatives (stating that the failure is a "self-fulfilling prophecy that confirms their prejudice"). Too bad, because it was otherwise a darn good column. Kane needs to recognize that many or most of us on the Right hope and pray that people of all ethnic backgrounds succeed. A rising tide raises all ships - Wisconsin as a whole has had a pretty low tide for a while. Moreover, a more educated citizenry results in safer cities, better elections, prosperity, more taxes generated, and better lives for all of us. We also do not believe that black kids are preordained for failure. Instead, we truly believe that most of the black kids who do not succeed fail because most of the adults in their lives have failed them.

Otherwise, Kane makes a good point.

Free Beer on Beer Day?

I don't think this was what Mayor Tom Barrett meant by "Beer Day":

From Channel 4's website:

MOUNT PLEASANT - Mount Pleasant police need your help to find a lot of stolen beer. Someone ripped off a trailer with 1,600 cases of Miller Beer from a trucking company. The beer is worth $24,000. Police say someone stole a tractor from Illinois and hitched it up to the trailer of beer.

CC's Wisconsin Hall of Fame #4: Who is He?

HINT: He invented something we all use every day. In fact, I can almost assure you that you have used it today.

HINT: QWERT

Paying My Taxes Tonight

Despite the good weather, I spent the day today working on my taxes (I have a terrible cold, so I just wasn't up to doing anything fun). If I wasn't sick before, I am certainly sick now.

I recognize an obligation to pay taxes. I believe it is part of the price of living in a free country.

However, when I think about the vast number of people who pay little or nothing in income taxes, I become angered. I am even more angered when I think about those portions of my taxes that (a) are wasted, (b) go to support people who are unwilling to contribute or who do not need support, (c) go to pay for things for which the government has no business involving itself, or (d) pay for services that should be paid for by state and local governments. Finally, I become angered when I realize that I am ineligible for many deductions and credits precisely because I pay a lot of taxes.

Personally, however, I am even more frustrated by the amount of time I need to invest to prepare the returns necessary for the privilege of paying taxes. Sure, I could pay someone else to do them, but that adds salt to the wounds suffered in paying the taxes in the first place. I hate to pay people for things that I am perfectly capable of doing myself.

Red County/Blue County

First, we had red states and blue states. Now, thanks to a liberal blogger from somewhere north named Russell Wallace (ReformDem), we have red counties and blue counties. While Wallace maps the Gableman-Butler race, it pretty accurately shows the political leanings of the state (except that Burnett County, being Gableman's home, is probably redder than it would be otherwise).

Interesting graphic Mr. Wallace. I am proud I live in a very red county.

H/T Ann Althouse

CC's Wisconsin Hall of Fame #2 and #3 Revisited: Who are They?

Since neither of my two readers got it with the last pictures I used, I am supplying easier pictures. Ignore (for this purpose only) the guy on the right in the left picture. Who are these two important Milwaukee natives?

What an Idea: Spending Cuts to Fix the Budget Shortfall

Every politician has suggested she or he has "common sense" somewhere ins ome campaign brochure. How come we almost never hear this (from The Sheboygan Press):

Editorial: Spending cuts best way to fix state budget

The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance isn't too optimistic that Wisconsin lawmakers and Gov. Doyle will come up with long-term solutions to the $650 million budget deficit the state is facing.

Todd Berry, head of the non-partisan watchdog group, said as much in a news release this week after analyzing the proposal made by Gov. Doyle and the subsequent measures passed by the state Senate and Assembly.

The taxpayers' alliance found that all three want, to varying degrees, to spend surplus, borrow, use accounting "tricks" and transfer monies from other sources to balance the general fund budget.

Berry concluded, "Whatever the ultimate solution, the state is likely to face a 'structural deficit' of $700 million ... or more in early 2009."

Worse yet, no one has adequately addressed these structural budget problems since they began in 1997.

Unless the state and national economy turn around quickly and substantially, Wisconsin is going to see the amount of tax dollars flowing into state coffers continue to lag. Without a significant cut in state spending, the deficit between what comes in and what goes out will only increase.

But only the budget repair measure passed by the Republican-controlled Assembly calls for a significant cut in spending — $361 million. The governor's spending cuts, according to the taxpayers' alliance, are $87.4 million and the Democratic-controlled Senate's proposed cuts are $40 million.

Much of the fix-up work comes from fund transfers — transportation gets hit for $243 million by Gov. Doyle — and borrowing. There is also the slick trick of spending $125 million school aid in one fiscal year, but not putting the money into the account until the next. This classic smoke-and-mirrors method of budgeting is included in measures passed by both the Senate and Assembly.

One item not in the Assembly plan is higher taxes. Assembly speaker Mike Huebsch criticized Gov. Doyle and Senate Democrats for proposing a tax on hospitals and increased corporate taxes.

We're not in favor of increasing taxes, either.

But we're equally opposed to merely shifting the current budget problem into the future through IOUs and shell games — which everyone seems to be willing to do.

Until the governor and the Legislature make the hard choice to cut spending when tax revenues decline, the state's budget problem will only continue.

Is Discriminating Based on Age Always Wrong?

John McCain's age has drawn a lot of attention. He will be 72 at the time the next President is sworn, and 76 at the end of that term. So, if talking about McCain's age, or at least alluding to it, is fair-game, will Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's age be a subject of politically correct discussion?

Abrahamson will be 76 when she runs next year (McCain's age when he would finish the job), and would be 86 at the end of the next term. To put it bluntly, McCain is more likely to make it to the end of his term, and more likely to be sharp if he does so.

Setting aside their respective political beliefs, I do not doubt the current intellectual ability of either. But even if I admired the philosophy of a candidate (and when it comes to Abrahamson, I admittedly do not), I would hesitate to vote for any person who could be deciding my future, or that of my children, at 86.

CC's Wisconsin Hall of Fame #2 and #3: Who are They?

I bumped this up in case you didn't see it earlier.



You identified the last Wisconsin luminary more easily than I expected. How about these two gentlemen? Most everyone knows them.

HINT: Since no one identified them in the first 12 hours, here is a hint: the "Irish Mafia."

HINT #2: Does Marquette Academy (now known as Marquette University High School) help anyone?

HINT #3: Put a Roman collar on one (no, he is not a priest), and stand the other next to Reagan.

Plaisted Rants, But What is He Saying?

Mike Plaisted posted a bitter tirade today, castigating most everyone who disagrees with him (other than his "crying" clients). Of course, all of us who do not share his same world view are "classless," "wing-nuts," "childish," "devious greed-heads," "deceitful" and "racist." I will respond to Plaisted's diatribe in the same way I responded to the so-called Conservative who called me a "tard." Whatever.

But in the midst of all of that vitriol, what is Plaisted saying? Plaisted fails to define "independent;" however, he makes clear that the judiciary is only "independent" when it is liberal. If judges are supported by liberal groups, they are independent. If they are supported by conservative groups, they lack independence. Interesting concept.

Plaisted seems to suggest that a judge is independent when she or he is "someone who they could not predict." Funny, I always understood that laws are sets of rules to be applied uniformly. I thought good judges were predictable. In fact, I thought the Supreme Court was established to ensure that laws are interpreted in a consistent manner throughout the state (aka predictability). Little did I know that an independent judiciary is one that operates like the Wheel of Fortune - you have an equal chance of big money or bankruptcy, all depending on how hard you spin the wheel. I thought Crticial Legal Studies and Indeterminism were long ago roundly debunked.

Plaisted implies that the Court is the place that should look out for the little guy, rather than being a place that looks out for everyone equally. He fails to explain the basis for that concept in our Constitution or our statutes.

I should probably admit that I am a practicing lawyer. I have been one for 20 years. At times, admitting my profession is a hard thing to do. While the Wisconsin Supremes have elevated the role of lawyers in our society by making the rules more illusory, it has simultaneously diminished the respect afforded the profession by letting shyters get away with murder.

Plaisted, like most lawyers and liberals, believes that the Court makes the rules, and that people are better off if the Court shapes those rules to provide "justice" under specific fact scenarios, rather than understanding that true justice involves predictability and consistency.

If the little guys who "come crying" to Plaisted do not like those predictable rules, they should direct their complaints to their elected legislators. Those legislators can then make other rules that resolve the crying clients' complaints. (Oh that's right, Plaisted represents criminals - not many legislators change the law for their benefit.)

Somehow, Plaisted missed the part of civics that explained that legislators legislate and the judiciary interprets.

The bottom line is that Plaisted is upset that a predictable judiciary is not as susceptible to manipulation as one that concerns itself with mundane concepts like codes and precedence.

Updated List of Places Requiring Photo ID

I have compiled a list that I have shared in the past of places and activities that require photo identification. While travelling with my wife and kids over Spring Break, I learned of a few more, so I am updating my list. I welcome more suggestions for the list.

I need to present photo identification to:

Buy a hunting license.

Buy a fishing license.

Get a marriage license.

Donate blood.

Get on an airplane.

Enter the country.

Begin employment at a new job.

Cash a check.

Use a credit card in many states.

Buy anything at Sam's Club.

Get a library card.

Buy alcohol at many retailers regardless of how old I appear.

Buy tobacco if I appear to be a minor.

Buy a cold medicine containing Pseudoephedrine.

Drive a car.

Sign-up for Public Assistance.

Apply for Social Security benefits.

Obtain a copy of a Statement of Economic Interest from the Accountability Board.

Apply for a retailer credit card.

See, rent or check out an R-rated movie.

Rent virtually anything (from a car to a video).

Use headphones on a museum tour or a National Historic Site.

Have my signature notarized.

Retrieve a tax return from most tax preparers.

Join the YMCA.
Enter the Federal Courthouse.

Enter a Milwaukee Public School.

Enter many office buildings.

Enter a Veterans Administration hospital.

Still, we do not need photo identification to vote.
How long can we make this list?

I am a "Tard"

Discourse about political policies is often fun, but drinking and political discussions don't mix well unless everyone is drinking. One reader left three comments for me last night at 2:30 a.m.., all within 15 minutes, and called me a "tard" but also said he likes me. Whatever.

Best of the Blogs Update: Shark and Shepherd

I just realized, to my great embarassment, that I have never added Shark and Shepherd (Rick Esenberg) to my list of the Best of the Blogs. Funny, because I read Shark and Shepherd very regularly. So, on the list that site goes.

A Proposal For a Better Way to Select Justices and Appellate Judges in the State of Wisconsin

As I argued earlier, our current system for selecting members of our Supreme Court and Appellate Courts is a mess. Those of us on the Right are pleased with the past two elections; however, we are equally likely to be unhappy with the next couple of elections. Those on the Left have legitimate concerns with the results.

Setting aside any momentary satisfaction with the results, no civilized person can maintain that the current system works well. It is ugly and brutish, and certainly is not designed to encourage the best or the brightest to occupy the highest positions of our judicial system.

For reasons that are obvious to anyone who believes in free speech or civil liberties, mandatory public funding of judicial elections is NOT the answer.

Other systems, however, exist. Based somewhat on the system utilized in Utah, I suggest the following:

• Nomination and selection by a bipartisan commission comprised of appointees by the Governor, the two Houses of the legislature and the Supreme Court.
• Confirmation by both houses of the state legislature (with one joint confirmation hearing).
• Retention elections after five years for Justices (one half of a term) and six years for Appellate Judges (a full term), followed by retention elections at the end of each successive full term. These elections would allow voters to un-elect an appointee based on the appointee's performance; however, they would leave selection of any replacement, if necessary, with the appointment commission. Prior to any retention election, another commission made up of judges, lawyers, elected officials and members of the public would conduct a rigorous review of the performance of the judges and make their evaluation public.

While it is true that retention elections could result in nastiness, they also would ensure that any replacement Justice or Appellate Judge meets some reasonable standard of intellectual gravitas. Further, retention elections would ensure that politically connected or long serving judges do not get a free pass because no one is willing to step forward to challenge them (too often the case in Wisconsin).

Further, a selection committee, and a rigorous confirmation process, would make it more likely that any judge selected meets some criteria besides political cronyism.

Perhaps someone else has an even better suggestion. If so, step forward. Just don't suggest that the current ssytem is not broke, or that it will somehow get better.

CC's Wisconsin Hall of Fame #1: Who is He?

UPDATE: Answer in Comments

Did Anyone Important Ever Come From Wisconsin?

Did anyone important ever come from Wisconsin? I asked that question to family, friends and co-workers over the past few weeks. Very few people could name more than a few people, other than athletes, who truly qualify as famous or nationally significant; however, the reality is that Wisconsin has produced its share (perhaps more than its share) of truly remarkable people.

When you visit other cities and states, you realize how proud they are of their sons and daughters who have gone on to greater things. But in Wisconsin, we forget.

Over the next few weeks, the Crocodile Cage will post pictures or clues regarding of some of the truly great people from Wisconsin. There will be a few athletes, but mot of those named will have had greater significance.

See if you can identify them, and add your guesses on the Comments page. Some will be easier than others. The answers, and a bit of information about those pictured or described, will follow the next day.

I will start with people from Milwaukee, a city truly afraid to honor its own (is it some kind of inferiority complex?), but I will move on to the rest of the state. I hope this will be fun.

Waste, Fraud and Abuse in Government

Patrick McIlheran makes a point truly worth repeating (and repeating and repeating). It is a truth, however, most voters really do not want to hear (and few elected officials - even Conservatives - admit). I took the liberty of replacing "the county" with "government."

[T]he grim reality is that waste, fraud and abuse are not part of government only because of slackness -- but because waste, fraud and abuse are intrinsic to systems driven chiefly by political, as opposed to economic, considerations. One can and should lessen waste, fraud and abuse, but one cannot expect to ever purge them completely, not without expecting people to march outside your office carrying signs dubbing you Larry the Hatchet.

...[C]iting waste, fraud and abuse, a decent starting point, is never sufficient as a funding source. It isn’t here. [Government] needs to do one of several things: Truly rethink the scope of the services it provides and the ways in which they’re provided, or come up with new tax revenue.

We Win and Are Pleased, But Should We Be Optimistic???

A Wisconsin Supreme Court with Justices Ziegler and Gableman is (we trust) a better Court than a Court with Justices Clifford and Butler. Conservatives are, and should be, elated, at least in this moment. But are our wins just temporary gains from a system that is bound to make those gains fleeting? Are we bound to follow these two steps forward with more steps backward?

These past two elections have been, at best, distasteful, ugly, brutal and nasty. This might be an acceptable price if we can be comfortable that these results will be indicative of future results. But can anyone really hold any such expectations?

Popular tastes shift, and politics shift with them. Our political landscape ebbs and flows with those shifts. That is the way politics should be. We elect representatives to reflect those shifting tastes.

But do we really want our Justices to be the best politicians, or instead do we want them to be the best possible jurists? Do we want their opinions to shift with the tides of politics? I always believed, as a Conservative, that Justices should apply the law rather than make it. But, if we allow the tides of politics to sway the results, haven't we suggested that we want Justices to make the law (but just do it our way)? Isn't allowing the tides of public opinion to change the results the very underpinnings of activism that caused us to elect Ziegler and Gableman in the first place?

Recognizing the flaws of our election process for the judiciary is not an attempt to elevate the judiciary over the other branches of government. The judiciary should be no more than a co-equal branch of government. It is, however, a different branch with a different role. That role has little to do with popular sentiment.

Few people can properly describe the differences among, for example, textualism, strict constuctionism and original intent. Fewer people can actually apply those differing philosophies. And fewer yet have the intellect and discipline to adhere to any judicial philosophy.

Yet, we select Justices through a process that does nothing to discern whether they have such abilities; instead, we abandon the quest for such intellectual and philosophical rigor and replace that quest with a process that ultimately determines whether a jurist has the qualities necessary to be an adept politician. The result gives us a judiciary bereft of the very qualities that most people have indicated, in the past two elections, they want.

I do not have a ready-made solution. I do not believe that public financing of campaigns is right, or manageable, or consistent with the very democracy we espouse. I also have concerns with the federal system of appointment, recognizing that there is obviously a strong taint of raw politics in that process, as well as a lack of accountability in lifetime appointments.

Nevertheless, I am positive that Wisconsin's current system will never provide us with an Antonin Scalia or even a William Rehnquist. And it certainly will never result in a fair and impartial judiciary that makes decisions based on a consistent rule of law.

A victory is the best time to examine whether a system should be changed. Proposed changes will not come across as whining. Of course, the time of a victory is the very time when it is most difficult to face that the system that provided that victory is flawed.

Now is the time when Conservatives should ask the hard questions about this system, and be open to changes. Those changes might result in short term setbacks, but hopefully they also will result in long-term stability and improvement. Do we Conservatives have the ability to examine the process and make the necessary changes?

I go to bed pleased that our Court will, perhaps, be somewhat more balanced. I hope that Michael Gableman is intellectually qualified for the challenge. I fear for the future. And I beg that my fellow Conservatives take this opportunity to change and improve this system.