Hard Bargaining

As this is written, Madison, Wisconsin, is convulsed in the biggest  protests since the Dow riots of September,  1967. (1)  The issue is Governor Scott Walker's  proposal that  public employee unions  (except for police and firefighters) be denied the right to bargain over anything but wages.  Although Walker has linked the issue to his demand that state workers pay more for their retirement and health  insurance, it is the bargaining question that has brought angry mobs to the Capitol, including a minority who support the Governor.  But is he right?

Wisconsin law permits collective bargaining by employees of state and local governments, and requires  binding arbitration  in cases of  deadlock.  In today's economy,  public sector unions are the only ones that are still growing;   the percentage of unionized  business employees  peaked in 1956,   and has been declining ever since.  Some argue that public officials who won their offices with labor support face a conflict-of-interest  in bargaining with the unions that helped elect them.

  There can be no doubt that unionization of public employees has led to higher labor costs for state and local governments.  But if you accept the right of workers  to organize and bargain collectively  (which  has been enshrined in federal labor law since  the 1930's), it is hard to justify excluding government employees.   Walker's  plan, which would  allow  unlimited  bargaining  by  police and firefighters  (the two unions in Milwaukee that endorsed him, coincidentally)  is especially unfair  to other groups of  public employees, such as teachers, librarians, lawyers and so on. 

Even if  public employees have better pay, benefits and job security than similar workers in  the private sector,  the arbitration rule  (which settles disputes in accordance with prevailing wages)  prevents drastic disparities.
Also, in those fields where governments and private entities compete for the best employees  (such as doctors, nurses,  accountants and such)  the advantages of public employment will attract the most capable applicants to public service jobs, so market forces serve the public interest.

Labor support is a significant factor  in many elections, including the one I am in right now.  Public employee unions, like  the Realtors,  florists, bankers,  undertakers, and military contractors  are self-interest groups, all of whom seek  favorable  actions by government officials.   Right-wing critics  single out the unions, but  all these groups make campaign contributions to  candidates (usually incumbents) who  are sympathetic to their causes.   Conscientious public officials should  not  favor groups that have helped them get elected, but as long as contributions are properly reported and spent  only for  political  purposes,  there is no  practical  way to prevent them from affecting the judgment of elected officials.  (2)  Voters who don't like unions are free to vote against politicians who have accepted their support.

The political atmosphere inside the Capitol is just as ugly as that  in the streets.   Democratic state senators are holed-up in Illinois to prevent a vote on Walker's bill, in a state version of  the filibuster.  There is talk of  recalling senators for their stands on this issue.  If we ever needed cooler heads to prevail,  we need them now.
---------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The issue then was recruiting on the UW campus by  Dow Chemical Co., which made the napalm used in the Vietnam War.

(2) It is illegal, however, for  an official to promise to vote or take any other  action in exchange for a contribution, which is known as "quid pro quo", Latin for  "this for that."  It is a hard claim to prove, and very few politicians are ever prosecuted for it.

Identity Crisis

Republican legislators are  poised to pass a bill that would require all Wisconsin  voters to display a photo-identification card every  time they vote.   The original bill specified that only a  valid driver's license, state ID  or military ID would suffice, but proposed amendments would add student ID's and passports.   Free state ID cards would be provided to anyone who needed one to vote.

The ostensible purpose of the law is to prevent  people from voting under a phony name.  But  is this going on now?

Suppose that someone  I will call Harvey Schmidt wanted  to vote  as me  in the November, 2010,  election, when no ID was required.  He could  have simply gone  to the Sherman School polling place and  identified  himself as Gerald S Glazer of  2944 North 50th Street. 

 But what if the real Gerald Glazer had already voted?  (I usually vote around  8 AM)  The ruse would be exposed,  and Schmidt would have been arrested.   But what if he came so early  in the day  (say, at  7:30 AM)  that the real Gerald Glazer had not yet voted?    All he would have to do was to convince Chief Election Inspector Cissy Glazer  that he was her real husband.

Of course most voters are not married to or otherwise related to a  poll-worker,  but there  is still a good chance that someone at the polling place  would know  the voter whose name the impostor was using.   So the risk of arrest  is  substantial, especially in  a small town  where everyone knows everyone else.  Someone might even recognize the impostor!

On the other hand, the benefit to the faker is not very great.  While a crook might garner thousands of dollars by cashing a stolen check,  and a terrorist  may believe he will earn  70 virgins in Paradise by  destroying a plane full of infidels,  the most Harvey Schmidt could  take by posing as  someone else at the polls is  one  vote for some candidate for elective office.  Big deal!   Would you risk a felony conviction record and maybe a year in prison just to  cast one illegitimate vote?  Would your favorite politician risk jail for you?  Why would anyone  try to vote with a fake name, when most people don't  even bother to vote at all?

Although identity theft is a major problem in our society,  I do not believe it is a significant factor in vote fraud.   The use of absentee ballots, which can be  sold or used in  the presence of  someone offering a bribe, is a much bigger threat to the honesty of elections, but no one seems to worry about  that.

The truth is that even if state ID's are free,  many voters who lack  a driver's  license   will not bother to  go to  the Courthouse to get one. Poor  people are less likely to have a driver's license, although some do drive anyway.   Even now,  poor people vote at a lower rate than middle-class  people, and  the photo ID  requirement will  reduce their participation even more.   And that is the real reason that Republicans are keen on  requiring a photo ID.

Elect Barrett and Nelson

On November 2 the people of Wisconsin will choose between the Democratic ticket of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and State Representative Tom Nelson and the Republican ticket of Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, respectively.

Scott Walker was elected to his present post in 2002. Since then he has been in continuous dispute with the County Board over his efforts to hold the tax levy to its current level. Each year he has vetoed increases in the budget passed by the Board, and each year he has been overridden. He has resisted the efforts of unions representing County employees to secure higher wages and better benefits, and has imposed layoffs and unpaid furloughs instead. Although the tax levy has increased during Walker's term of office from $218.7 million to $262.3 million (nearly 20%), County services have been understaffed and the quality of parks and County facilities have declined. Moreover, the Greater Milwaukee Committee issued a report this month that suggested that the County may need to file for bankruptcy soon.

If elected Governor, Scott Walker has proposed cutting state taxes by about $4 billion, which would necessitate massive cuts in state spending, especially in Badgercare, the state health insurance program.(1) He is opposed to building a high-speed rail system linking Milwaukee with Madison and the Twin Cities, even though the federal government has already allocated over $800 million for the project. (Walker would like to spend it on Wisconsin roads and bridges, but if Wisconsin rejects the rail line, the money will be re-assigned to other states that want it. )

Since Tom Barrett became Mayor of Milwaukee in 2004, the city tax levy has increased from $199 million to $246.8 million, an increase of about 24%, about 4% more than that of the County. But Barrett has honored agreements with city employees, and the city does not face bankruptcy. His relationship with the Common Council has been cordial overall, in marked contrast to the constant battles between Walker and the County Board. By nature, Barrett is a compromiser and conciliator, while Walker is confrontational.

As Governor, Tom Barrett would cut the state budget by $1.1 billion, primarily by reducing management staff in state agencies and abolishing the elective offices of state treasurer and secretary of state. He favors joint bargaining for health insurance by state and local government workers to secure lower premiums for the same coverage. Barrett favors the rail connection discussed above, even though he admits that it will require an annual subsidy from the state.

The Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor has been a state legislator for six years and is a leader in the Assembly; the Republican candidate has never held public office.

Those who want lower state taxes above all else will prefer Walker, whose main goal appears to be reducing government and taxes. But I prefer Barrett's approach, both on the issues and how he deals with a legislative body. Also, as a former congressman (1993-2003), Barrett has first-hand knowledge of how the federal government works, and would be better prepared to garner federal dollars for Wisconsin. Walker would not even accept federal dollars if offered.

In summary, I contend that the Barrett-Nelson ticket offers the better prospect of enlightened and successful leadership for the state of Wisconsin for the next four years.
-----------------------------------------------------------

(1) The Shepard Express, October 14, 2010, page 10.

Unnecessary Elective Offices

"Yes, we can do without the offices of state treasurer, secretary of state and lieutenant governor."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial, Sept. 2, 2010 (page 10A)

Wisconsin voters will be nominating Democratic and Republican candidates for these (plus other) state offices Tuesday, September 14. But should these three offices continue to be elective?

Lieutenant Governor
The only real role of this official is to succeed the governor in case he or she cannot complete the term of office. The governor may also assign duties to the LG. Our posting of August 29 recommended that each nominee for governor nominate a running-mate, instead of leaving the selection to a primary; the present system allows the selection of a nominee for LG that the governor can't stand, or one that would effectively sink the ticket. (1)
But if the office were eliminated, as suggested by the JS editorial, who would succeed the governor? The Constitution could be amended to designate some other official, such as the Attorney General or Speaker of the Assembly. The trouble is that the successor may be a member of a different political party, so that a change in the office of governor would also lead to massive changes in the entire executive branch. Moreover, if the legislature were led by the opposite party, there would be a perverse incentive to impeach and remove the governor from office.
The only way to guaranty a successor from the same party is to have the successor selected on the same ticket, as is the LG today.

State Treasurer and Secretary of State
These officials are responsible for distributing abandoned bank accounts, notarizing acts of the governor, appointing notaries, and other mundane tasks, none of which involve making policy. The JS is right that there is no need to elect them at all, especially on a partisan ballot.
All of these duties can be handled by the Department of Administration, which is controlled by the governor.
Incidentally, the Secretary of State (now Douglas J LaFollette) is second in line to become governor in case both top jobs are vacant at the same time. If this elective job were eliminated, the governor should be authorized to nominate a new LG if that office became vacant, subject to confirmation by both houses of the legislature. This would parallel the process used to fill the office of Vice President of the United States in case of a vacancy.

Let's demand the new legislature in 2011 begin the process of amending the state constitution to make these changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) For example, if Republicans voted en masse for Spencer Coggs for LG in the Democratic primary, they would virtually assure the election of the Republican ticket. (Don't tell them!)

Nominate Nelson

Of the four candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Wisconsin in the September 14 Primary Election, only two have legislative experience: State Senator G Spencer Coggs of Milwaukee and
Assembly Majority Leader Thomas Nelson of Kaukauna. Here is why each man claims that he would do more to enhance the Democratic ticket in November than any of his rivals (1):

Coggs says that he would "deliver the minority vote ....he would counter the negatives (Milwaukee Mayor Tom) Barrett has accumulated through his pursuit of a mayoral takeover of the Milwaukee Public Schools and backlash over the July floods."

Nelson says, "I'm the only one running who has any experience taking on a tough Republican opponent and beating them (sic) in their own backyard."

So, who has the better case? Let's evaluate Coggs' claim first: his presence on the ticket would be a significant factor in getting "minority" (i.e. black) votes for the Barrett ticket. In 2006, Milwaukee's overwhelmingly black First Aldermanic District gave the Democratic nominee Governor Jim Doyle 8,950 votes to 1,339 for the Republican Mark Green. Of Doyle's vote, 5,999 was straight Democratic, while only 284 of Green's was straight Republican. ( In partisan elections the tendency of blacks to vote Democratic is even stronger than their tendency to "vote black." (3) ) Doyle did not need a black running-mate to run-up this lopsided result, so why does Barrett?

Perhaps Coggs is right about the lack of enthusiasm for Barrett among black voters: after all, he defeated the first black Mayor of Milwaukee, Marvin Pratt, in 2004. But I contend that even if Coggs loses the LG primary, very few black voters will back the Republicans. That is because blacks are disproportionately poor, and so depend more on social welfare programs (such as Medicaid, food stamps, etc.) that the Democratic Party supports. They are not so sore at Barrett that they would prefer a candidate likely to cut state spending on these programs. Moreover, if Barrett becomes Governor, Common Council Chairman Willie Hines will become the city's second black Mayor! That is a huge incentive for blacks to vote for Barrett, no matter who is nominated for LG.

I will concede that having Coggs on the ticket might "goose-up" turnout among black voters, and thus increase the Democratic vote, but that effect may be more than offset by the number of whites who would vote Republican if he were slated.

Since Coggs introduced the "race card" into this contest by implying that his race would help the Democratic ticket, it is only fair to also consider the downside of nominating him for LG. In the entire history of the State of Wisconsin, only one black candidate, Vel Phillips, has ever been elected to statewide office, Secretary of State OK, Barack Obama carried Wisconsin in 2008. But Louis Butler was the only incumbent Justice of the State Supreme to lose an election since 1967, and his race probably worked against him.

Although nominating Coggs would balance the ticket racially, it would severely unbalance it geographically: both Barrett and Coggs live in the City of Milwaukee. No one from Milwaukee has been elected Governor of Wisconsin in about a hundred years, and even incumbent (Acting) Governor Martin J Schreiber of Milwaukee could not win a term of his own in 1978. Maybe voters from other parts of the state suspect that a Milwaukeean would show preference for his home town in allocating state resources, but the bias against our fair city is undeniable. (4) To nominate another Milwaukeean (regardless of race) for LG would place the ticket at an insurmountable disadvantage.

On the other hand, Tom Nelson, who defeated a Republican incumbent in 2004 in Kaukana, would bring some needed strength to the ticket in the Fox River Valley, a "swing district." It is significant that in less than six years Nelson rose to the position of Majority Leader of the Assembly; although Coggs has been in the State Senate one year longer, he is not a leader of that chamber.

Comparing the competing claims of these two rivals for the nomination indicates that Nelson's claim to enhance the electability of the ticket rings true, while Coggs' does not. But beyond that, note that Nelson's claim is based on what he has done, while Coggs' claim is based on who he is. Every politician is a member of some ethnic or religious group, but only some trade on their identity. I prefer those who do not.

The name "Nelson" has been lucky for Wisconsin Democrats in the past, and I hope that they will go with it again now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Aug. 28, 2010, page 3B.

(2) Election Commission of the City of Milwaukee, 2006-07 Report

(3) In 1988 a black businesswoman named Helen Barnhill was the Republican nominee against white Democratic Congressman Jim Moody in the old 5th District, then the northern half of Milwaukee. Moody trounced Barnhill in every black neighborhood of the district.

(4) However, Herb Kohl of Milwaukee was elected US Senator in 1988 and ever since. Unlike Schreiber, Kohl never represented Milwaukee in the legislature or Congress, so many voters either did not know or did not care what city he lived in. Also, US senators have no role in allocating state resources.

The B Word on the Ballot

"NOT the whiteman's bitch"

Wisconsin permits independent candidates in partisan elections to display a phrase of up to 5 words under their names on the ballot to indicate the "party or principle represented." Usually it is something like "Socialist Party" or "Cut Taxes." This year Ieushah Griffin, an independent candidate for the Assembly in the 10th district on the north side of Milwaukee, wants to have the phrase above (hereinafter "The Phrase") under her name on the November General Election ballot. But the staff of the Government Accountability Board, which is in charge of elections in this state, has determined that The Phrase is "derogatory," and so banned it from the ballot. The candidate appealed the ruling to the Board, which voted 3-2 to restore The Phrase. However, four votes are required to override a staff determination, so the decision to ban The Phrase stands. Griffin filed suit in federal court on July 22 to force the Board to allow The Phrase under her name. (1)

The Board has the right under state law to ban obscene and derogatory statements from the ballot. The word "bitch" (literally,female dog) is highly pejorative when applied to a woman, but is not obscene. (2) But is The Phrase derogatory?

One may argue that The Phrase implies that the Democratic nominee (presumably Elizabeth Coggs), unlike Griffin, is "the whiteman's bitch," a "ghetto-slang" epithet for "under white control." Ms Griffin is trying to "play the race card" on the ballot with The Phrase, just as the Democratic Party of Alabama did with its symbol: a white rooster bearing a banner with the words "White Supremacy." The name "Black Panther Party" does the same thing. (3) I consider all pandering to racial and ethnic hostility in politics reprehensible, and would certainly vote against a candidate like Ieshuah Griffin that used it. But, since The Phrase does not name any other candidate or party, I cannot agree that it is derogatory of anyone. Rather, it makes a political statement about the candidate herself, albeit in a very negative and offensive way. That is no more deragotory than "the honest candidate" or " the patriotic candidate" which also imply that rival candidates are dishonest or unpatriotic, but I believe these phrases would have been allowed.

Living in a vibrant democracy entails being exposed to offensive speech now and then, and our courts have given maximum leeway to political messages, like The Phrase, which does distinguish the candidate from her rivals on the ballot, in the sense that she considers herself somehow "more black." Accordingly, I predict that she will prevail in federal court. At the very least, the Court will instruct the state to permit a less offensive version of The Phrase under Griffin's name. (How about " Not controlled by white people?")

If I lived in the 10th Assembly district, I would vote for the "whiteman's bitch." But then, I am not the epitome of her intended constituency.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 22 and 23 , 2010.

(2) Names of female animals applied to women such as bitch, cow, and vixen, are considered pejorative, but names of male animals such as bull, buck and tomcat applied to men are not. Double standard, again!

(3) Since all panthers are black, the term Black Panther is redundant, but emphasizes the blackness of the party. The name "Panther Party" lacks the intensity desired.

Picking the Lt. Governor

One of the people on this list will become the second highest elected official of the State of Wisconsin: Lieutenant Governor (LG):
Spencer Coggs, Tom Nelson, Harry Sanders, James Schneider,Brett Davis, Rebecca Kleefisch, Robert Lorge, Dave Ross, Terry Virgil and Nick Voegeli. The first four are seeking the Democratic nomination, the next four are running as Republicans, Virgil is a Libertarian and Voegli is an independent. The field is crowded this year since incumbent Barbara Lawton (like Governor Doyle) has declined to seek re-election.

The Lieutenant Governor becomes Acting Governor if the Governor is disabled or out of the State (except while commanding the Wisconsin National Guard), and becomes Governor if the incumbent dies or otherwise leaves office . (1) Martin Schreiber and Scott McCallum both became Governor this way, but neither one could win the next election to keep the office.

Until 1979 the LG presided over the State Senate, but no longer. While waiting for the Governor to "buy the farm" or otherwise leave office, the LG has no powers or duties of office. In practice, recent Governors have assigned their LG's honorific roles such as leading task forces, making speeches, and so on. But the Governor is under no legal obligation to give the LG any work at all, and if he does assign the LG a project, the LG is under no legal obligation to do it. For this reason, it is essential that the Governor and LG work as a team; otherwise, the office is totally useless. (2)

Under current Wisconsin election law, the nominee of each party for LG is selected at the September Primary, then the nominees for Governor and LG run as a team in the November General Election. This method is a recipe for political disaster, since the nominees might be political foes. (3) A ticket like that would probably lose, but if it were elected, the LG could spend the next four years doing nothing but undercutting the Governor and working for his ouster. Even if the nominees are friends, they might come from the same county, so the ticket would be geographically unbalanced. (4) Of course, the winner of the LG primary might also be a total idiot, which would also drag down the ticket. (OK, this could happen for any office, but the difference is that the LG nominee also drags down another, perhaps far better, candidate as well as himself. This is only true for Lieutenant Governor, and no other office.)

I propose that Wisconsin abolish the primaries for LG. Instead, each nominee for Governor should file a Certificate of Nomination for Lieutenant Governor within 10 days after winning the primary, and that the LG nominee should be required to sign an acceptance of the nomination at the same time. Here are the advantages of this plan, which resembles that used to select nominees for Vice President of the United States:

Party Unity: After a hotly-contested gubernatorial primary, the winner might offer the runner-up the LG nomination, thus unifying major sectors of a fractured party. Even if the two candidates had been bitter rivals, the offer of the second spot on the ticket could go a long way toward healing the rift. If this plan were in effect now, the Republicans could field a Walker-Neumann ticket (or the reverse). None of the four contenders for the GOP nomination (listed above) brings any political strength to the ticket.

Better Candidates: The nominees for Governor will have a strong incentive to choose a credible candidate for LG, since they will be on the ballot together.

A More Useful LG: Since the LG will owe his office to the Governor, he or she will be a more loyal and useful member of the administration. Should the Governor leave office, the transition will be smoother.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Wisconsin Constitution, Article V, Section 7.

(2) Significantly, if the office of LG becomes vacant, it stays vacant for rest of the term. The Secretary of State is next line for Governor if there is no LG.

(3) This happened in Illinois, which has the same procedure as Wisconsin. When a supporter of fascist Lyndon LaRouche won the Democratic primary for LG, the gubernatorial nominee (Adlai Stevenson III) resigned from the ticket, which then lost the General Election.

(4) If State Senator Coggs wins the Democratic LG nominee, and Tom Barrett is nominated for Governor, both candidates on the ticket will be from the City of Milwaukee, a weakness that could sink the ticket.

Keep Butler, Elect Dallet

1. Retain Justice Louis Butler on Wisconsin Supreme Court
Justice Butler was appointed to the State Supreme Court by Governor Jim Doyle in 2004, two years after he was elected to the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County. He had been a City of Milwaukee Municipal Judge since 1992. He taught law part-time at Marquette University Law School and is now on the faculty of the National Judicial College. Butler is the only member of the Supreme Court from Milwaukee County at this time.
His opponent, Judge Michael Gableman of Burnett County, is a former district attorney. He has served on the Circuit Court since 2002, but has no appellate experience.
Since Justice Butler has served honorably in three judicial positions for the past 16 years, his record and experience give him a considerable edge over Gableman. Judges should not be replaced unless a challenger makes a convincing case that the incumbent has been unsatisfactory and that the challenger is likely to do better; Judge Gableman has not made this case.
Butler has been the target of a particularly vicious campaign of negative ads, similar in some ways to the 1988 "Willie Horton" ads. His endorsement by the Milwaukee Police Association and District Attorney John Chisolm should dispel any suspicions that he is "soft on criminals."
He has been criticized for successfully defending a client as a public defender about 25 years ago; apparently the only defense lawyers worthy of becoming judges are those who lose every single case!
Gableman has also been the target of unfair ads, including one that blames him for plea-bargaining when he was DA. As fans of TV's Law and Order know, all DA's plea-bargain because otherwise there would be too many jury-trials and quite a few guilty defendants would be acquitted.
Ignore the diatribes, and give Louis Butler a full term on the Court.

2. Elect Rebecca Dallet Circuit Judge
Judicial Court Commissioner Rebecca Dallet has a stronger background for election as judge than her opponent, Attorney Jeff Norman. She supervises ten other judicial court commissioners, who exercise the powers of a judge in chambers. (1) Prior to this job, she was a state and federal prosecutor for ten years. Mrs. Dallet also teaches part-time at Marquette University Law School.
Although Mr Norman's experience as a police officer is also relevant, particularly in criminal cases, he cannot match Mrs Dallet's courtroom record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) A judicial court commissioner can take depositions, accept pleas, schedule trials, and approve out-of-court settlements.

Favre for Governor?

Brett Favre may be too old for football, but he is too young to retire. Oh, he could make a few bucks giving inspirational speeches and doing play-by-play TV or radio commentaries, but how about a real job----one that could have a big impact-----like Governor of Wisconsin?

Although the 2008 national election is still before us, it is not too early to make plans for the 2010 election for Governor of Wisconsin. Since Jim Doyle has a lock on the Democratic nomination for a third term, Favre's best chance would be to run as a Republican. He could start by buying or renting a house in Wisconsin (probably in Green Bay), registering to vote there, and joining the Republican Party of Wisconsin.

Is Favre a Republican? I don't know. But if he is for amnesty for illegal immigrants and campaign finance limitation, he's as much a Republican as John McCain, the party's presidential nominee. The GOP has been described as a "big tent", so I am sure it is big enough to hold the popular quarterback.

He could run, but could he win?

Minnesota elected former wrestler Jesse Ventura governor, and football is a greater source of state pride than professional wrestling. Jack Kemp made the leap from the Buffalo Bills to a seat in Congress to Secretary of HUD to the 1996 nomination for Vice President of the United States. Arnold Schwarznegger first won fame as a body-builder, which opened the door to a career as a movie actor; now he is Governor of California. Herb Kohl was too short to make it in basketball as a player, so he had to buy the Milwaukee Bucks in order to win his seat in the US Senate in 1988.

Of course, some athletes fail to win political office. Chicago Cubs star Ernie Banks couldn't get elected alderman in that city, despite two tries. Former Milwaukee Bucks manager John Erickson lost a senate race to incumbent Bill Proxmire in 1976. Older readers may recall that ex-Braves shortstop Johnny Logan failed several times to win the Democratic nomination for Sheriff of Milwaukee County, despite the catchy slogan "Vote for Logan and get home safe!"

But don't most voters carefully examine the experience and platform of each candidate for important offices before deciding which one to back? No, most people vote for candidates they like: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, maybe Obama. Polls have shown that most voters are not even familiar with the positions of the candidates they voted for!

That is why Brett Favre could become the next Governor of Wisconsin. He may not get my vote, but he just might be popular to win without it!

All Eyes on Wisconsin!

Wisconsin voters will have a crucial voice in the selection of the nominees for President this Tuesday, February 19. Let's make it count!

Democrats: Obama More Impressive
Barack Obama, raised in a broken home, made his own way to Harvard Law School, the Illinois State Senate, and the US Senate. His charisma on the campaign trail rivals that of John Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
While Obama got where he is in spite of his last name (1), Hillary Clinton got where she is because of hers. (2) The daughter of a privileged two-parent family, her ticket to political prominence was marriage to a young man who would (with her considerable help) become Governor of Arkansas and President of the United States. The Democratic nomination for US Senator was virtually handed to her by retiring Senator Daniel P Moynihan of New York, where she had never previously lived.
Fearless Forecast: Obama will sweep the 1st, 2nd and 4th congressional districts and garner about half the vote in the other five, giving him Wisconsin and probably the nomination. If nominated, he may appeal to both women and Jewish voters by choosing Senator Diane Feinstein (3) of California as his running-mate.

Republicans: McCain an Easy Choice
As noted in our January 8 Glazerbeam, John McCain is the most qualified candidate of either party to lead America in the age of Islamic terrorism. His plan to establish permanent American military bases in Iraq is likely the best hope of maintaining stability in the Middle East, especially in view of Iranian ambitions. He has shown remarkable willingness to work with Democrats, who will probably dominate the Congress.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has surprised most pundits by outlasting better known and better funded Republicans, such as Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. Yet Huckabee is a deeply flawed candidate for two reasons: his zeal to Christianize America and his hare-brained scheme to replace the income tax with a sales tax. (4)
Texas Representative Ron Paul is still in contention, like the cartoon Road Runner who runs off a cliff and doesn't fall until he looks down. His outlandish views have been thoroughly repudiated in every primary and caucus so far, but he seems to have a hard core of 5-10% of Republican voters sticking with him.
Fearless Forecast: McCain will trounce Huckabee in Wisconsin and go on to win the nomination. Mitt Romney would be a logical choice for Vice President.
Ron Paul will probably run for President on the Libertarian (or other third-party) ticket, emphasizing opposition to illegal immigration. If he does so, he will draw enough votes away from McCain to sink the Republicans. Ross Perot sank the first President Bush this way in 1992, and Ralph Nader did the same to Al Gore in 2000. Third parties don't win, but they do count.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Obama doen't even use his middle-name, Hussein, perhaps because it reminds people of Sadam.

(2)Even her husband was not born with the name "Clinton". Born William Jefferson Blythe (after his deceased father), he took on the surname of his step-father Roger Clinton.

(3) Senator Feinstein converted to Conservative Judaism when she got married. She considers herself Jewish, but orthodox Jews would not.

(4) See the December 17, 2007, Glazerbeam entitled "New Tax, Anyone?"