Loyal Opportunist, Cynical Opposition

By the time you read this, President Bush will already have made tonight’s speech about the war in Iraq.

I won’t have watched it. I almost never do. They’re always on during feed-bathe-and-put-four-kids-to-bed time. I’ll read it in the morning, but for the most part, I bet I already know what he said.

Here are some excerpts from the speech I didn’t hear: we knew this would be hard, and it has been. We knew there would be setbacks, and there have been. We’re making progress – lots of examples. Setting deadlines for withdrawal is the stupidest thing we could possibly do because it will let the bad guys know two things: one, they can just sit back and wait for us to leave; two, we can be worn down by terrorists.

His opponents are already positioning themselves to criticize him. Senator John Kerry, in today’s New York Times:

“The Bush administration is courting disaster with its current course - a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success.

The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war - a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing. The administration has put itself - and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day - in a box of its own making.”

Well. If one were inclined to generosity, one could put Kerry’s statements in a good light by saying he’s filling the role of the loyal opposition. Not being so inclined, I say he’s being opportunistic, positioning himself to take cynical advantage of whatever bad news may come out of Iraq in the future, and the public response to it.

Loyal opposition, cynical opportunist. For the party out of power, they’re really the same thing.

Here’s where Kerry really gives it away: “Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration…destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification.”

“De-Baathification,” meaning the elimination of the Baath party – the political machine created by Saddam and his sons, sort of the Iraqi equivalent of Germany’s National Socialist (Nazi) Party.

Kerry may not know this (he was only an average-to-below-average student), but following the German surrender in WWII, the Truman administration took heat for leaving former Nazi officials in place. Why? Because those officials knew how to keep the trains running on time.

Even Emperor Sidious, Dark Lord of the Sith, had to depend on the bureaucracy, at least for the first twenty years of his administration.

President Bush didn’t leave the Baathists in place, partly (I assume) for political reasons – these were the guys who enforced Saddam’s evil, after all – and partly to make sure they couldn’t just lay low and regroup later on.

The question is: if we’d left the Baathists in power, in command of the army and the bureaucracy, would Kerry today be commending that decision?

Nope.

Nobody ever said it’s easy, being the loyal opposition. You can have your own policies, sort of, but you really have to adapt to whatever the administration does.

For example, in the 19-teens, Teddy Roosevelt was brutal in his criticism of President Wilson’s isolationism at the start of WWI.

Roosevelt’s sons, who tended to follow their father’s example, were equally critical of FDR (a distant cousin of theirs) for aiding our WWII allies-to-be in the late 1930s.

The Roosevelts were Republicans. Wilson and FDR were Democrats. The Dems were in power, the Pubs opposed them. Until Pearl Harbor, anyway. Then, the Roosevelts themselves signed up and marched off.

In 1999, then-majority whip Tom DeLay was just as critical of President Clinton’s involvement of U.S. forces in the Balkans. “This is his (Clinton’s) war,” DeLay said.

One wonders what he would have said, had either Bush been in office at the time. Something else, I would guess.

President Clinton responded by eviscerating our military’s ability to fight – avoiding casualties – and potential negative public opinion – was more important than getting the job done.

We can expect the opposite from Bush. American and worldwide security, both physical and economic, will be better served by a stable, democratic Iraq. That’s something else Bush said tonight: we’ll stay the course. We’ll see it through. We have to do this, or ten years from now, the sacrifices so far will have been for nothing.

And what do you want to bet: John Kerry will be right there, saying I told you so.

The Ownership Society: Still Breathing

Considering this week’s work at the U.S. Supreme Court, it seems fruitless to continue talking about an “ownership society.”

Nevertheless, there’s news on the Social Security front. Good news.

Rep. Paul Ryan and a few and sundry of his colleagues revealed a new plan this week for advancing Social Security reform: instead of diverting a portion of our payroll taxes to personal accounts instead of to current benefits, this plan simply uses the surplus – the excess money going into the system.

Social Security has been running a surplus for decades. Our government – being a government – has for all that time remained true to its nature and found ways to spend that money, instead of saving it up for a time like, well, now. Congress is spending $200 million a day from the Social Security “trust fund” on other spending.

This plan will use the surplus – and only the surplus – to fund optional personal retirement accounts for workers under 55.

It’s got a couple things going for it: for one, it requires no changes to Social Security as it exists today. No thought of moving the retirement age or cutting benefits. Senior citizens – the Gold Standard of interest groups – has little to get angry about.

And the plan’s authors hope it will lead to greater things in the future.

It also has a couple of problems: it’s not as lucrative as Ryan’s original plan. It can’t be, since only a fraction of all the money going into Social Security is available for it. The surplus adds up to $527 a year for every eligible worker in 2006. As the system heads closer to insolvency, that number will shrink.

That’s the other problem: the surpluses are expected to end in 2016. We’ll either have to be satisfied with what’s in our personal accounts by then (which would be better than nothing), or expand on the idea over the next ten years.

It’s a compromise. One side gets personal accounts, the other side gets no changes to the criminally wasteful program that is today’s Social Security.

Will that be enough to get it past Congress? The opposition is already gearing up. So far, I’ve seen two arguments against the plan.

The first: it “doesn’t go far enough.” It doesn’t do anything about Social Security’s insolvency. One might point out that it’s not meant to: the idea is to improve Social Security for future generations.

One might point that out, but one shouldn’t. Rather, ask for their plan to solve insolvency. Let them be the ones to talk about tax increases and benefit cuts, while we talk about getting our retirements out of the government’s hands.

The second: it’s a “slippery slope.” As USA Today put it: “it's being sold as something different from what its authors hope it will become. Creating private accounts only to shut off their funding after a decade, just when the surplus becomes a deficit, makes little sense.”

True, and the authors aren’t hiding the fact they hope it will lead to more.

I haven’t heard it yet, but there will be a third argument against the plan: “How are you going to pay for it?”

They drag it out for tax cuts. They’ll drag it out for this.

We’ll see how hard the opposition fights. We’ll also see how hard pro-reform allies fight. Many of them won’t like this, either.

It is, as I said, a compromise. It’s not enough – not for me, certainly. Social Security, as I’ve said before, is a wasteful, stupid program, which drains hundreds of dollars a month from the average paycheck and gives pennies in return for it – and that’s if you live to be ninety.

I want Ryan’s plan. I want all of my Social Security taxes going into a personal account – a personal account, which takes advantage of the investment market, and over which the government has no power.

Side note: I know, my house is supposed to be like that, too. End side note.

It’s not everything, but it is something. And here’s a nice little nugget for the conservative in your life:

“The gradual phase-in of personal accounts funded by the surplus would force Congress to cut spending by the amount it currently takes from the surplus — about $85 billion a year, or roughly 3 percent of the total $2.5 trillion federal budget.”

That, my friends, is called a spending cut. Know a conservative angry about the compromise? Show him that.

Just, please, keep SCOTUS away from it.

Wisconsin Health Plan: Socialized Medicine?

“This is not socialized medicine. The virtue of this plan is that it leaves in place our first-rate system of health care providers. Participants would be able to choose coverage from a menu of care providers -- including their current physician -- who are already operating in the state. This preserves consumer choice and preserves competition in the medical service industry – things socialized medicine can never do.”

Rep. Curt Gielow (R-Mequon) and Rep. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee) writing in defense of their “Wisconsin Health Plan.”

“This is not socialized medicine.” On one hand, they’re right: it isn’t. On the other hand, they’re wrong. It is, and it will become more so over time.

The “Wisconsin Health Plan” works like this: every Wisconsin resident (with certain limited exceptions) is in it. Every Wisconsin employer will be taxed to pay for it.

The plan includes co-pays: from $25 for a doctor’s visit (less for kids under 18) up to $250 for a non-emergency emergency room visit. Drug co-pays of $5 to $35. An annual deductible of $1,200 for adults, $100 for kids.

It includes a Health Savings Account (HSA) for every adult in the state, with the state kicking in half the deductible - $600 annually.

Consumers – patients – do get to choose among providers. Thus, there is some competition, as the authors argue. By incorporating co-pays, deductibles, and HSAs, the plan also nods toward the laws of supply and demand.

So why are people calling it socialized medicine?

Because it puts our health care into the hands of the government.

Under this plan, choices end at the state line. If you’re a resident, you’re in. If you’re an employer, you’re paying. Period.

Secondly, co-pay and deductible levels will be set by the state – either the Legislature or a state agency – and the state will have the power to change them.

Is there any doubt that, over time, co-pays will become both fewer and cheaper, in order to “expand access?” The deductibles, too? And the relatively few groups who are excluded from the plan?

It’ll only take one well-publicized story – the young single mother who can’t afford the co-pay; the elderly grandma whose Social Security doesn’t cover her drugs; the guy who moves here from Illinois to take a factory job, but has a stroke a week after crossing the border.

Politics will take over.

Over time, the consumer end of the deal will get better and better – lower co-pays and deductibles, shorter waiting periods for new arrivals to join. That means higher demand, which will drive up the state’s costs. Over time, that means higher taxes, lower reimbursement rates, and/or rationing of services.

Think Canada. Or, closer to home, think Medicaid. This is exactly why Medicaid patients can’t find a dentist who will take them.

That the plan allows consumer choice and competition isn’t really the point. Market forces aren’t truly at work here – not when the government is stepping in to keep the economic cost low.

The only way for market forces to work is to put those costs directly onto the consumer. To leave both sides – provider and consumer – alone, so the former can set their own prices, and the latter can use those prices as a factor in deciding where to go.

By causing the prices to be both low and uniform no matter what the doctor’s visit is for, this plan effectively removes most of that decision-making process. That, plus government control, plus the universal participation, are what make it socialized medicine.

Now. That shouldn’t close off all discussion. The authors say they offered this to “initiate a discussion… We consider our proposal a starting point; it is not written in stone.”

So, how would I change it?

Well, the authors claim they can “free up nearly $1 billion in the state’s biennial budget” by putting the whole state on their plan. I wonder: how much can we save by putting state employees on it? How much, if you include local governments? Teachers?

It’s not the plan itself that’s bad – it’s the government’s overbearing role in the plan. When employers see how well it works for government employees – if it works, which I think it will – they’ll want in on it, too, but they won’t be putting themselves into the hands of a government that can change the deal on a whim. They’ll take advantage of insurance plans that already exist – that private insurance companies already offer.

And that will be the free market at work.

Veto Power

Will he, or won’t he? Governor Doyle, that is: will he veto the entire budget?

He could. Some few people are suggesting that he should. Certainly, it’s an option he’ll keep on the table, until…

…until he decides against it. And that’s if he’s even considering it, instead of just leaving it out there, refusing to rule it out. Hoping it will worry the Republicans.

Every executive in Wisconsin – mayors, county execs, the Governor, what have you – has the veto pen in some form. Every Governor across the country has it.

But when it comes to appropriation bills – the budget – Wisconsin’s Governor has unmatched power to line things out. Chapters, paragraphs, sentences, even words and digits are vulnerable to his pen.

Wisconsin voters ratified the “partial veto” in 1930. Then-Governor Phillip LaFollette was both its biggest opponent, and the first to use it.

Later, Governor Patrick Lucey invented the “digit veto” in 1973. He changed an appropriation from $25 million to $5 million by removing the “2.”

Governor Tony Earl was first to use the “pick-a-letter” veto – crossing out individual letters to change words, and to make new words from parts of others.

And Governor Tommy Thompson was the first to use the “reduction veto,” in which he crossed out one number and substituted a different, smaller number.

Every single one of those actions was later upheld by the state Supreme Court, so long as the vetoes left a “complete, entire, and workable” law that addressed the same subject as it did when originally written.

How can they do that? The Constitution says: “Appropriation bills may be approved in whole or in part by the governor…”

It’s those three words, “or in part,” that make Wisconsin’s veto unique. What, exactly, is “part” of a bill? That’s been interpreted and re-interpreted, fought over for decades, and after a succession of court cases (and one more constitutional amendment), it’s been settled that Wisconsin’s Governor can do very nearly anything to an appropriation bill.

Today, the “pick-a-letter” option is gone, because of a constitutional amendment ratified in 1990. The rest of the Governor’s veto powers remain intact.

Thus, it seems silly to wonder whether Governor Doyle will veto the entire budget. With his ability to veto, why would he?

Possibly because even his extensive veto power might not be enough. It’s hard to see how it can get him what he (and his interest groups) want.

See, the state’s public schools want more money. The teacher’s union wants more money. Doyle tried to give them more money, but the legislature’s finance committee (JFC) wouldn’t go along with it – not to the extent Doyle wanted. JFC approved $458 million more for schools – enough to buy nearly any pro baseball or basketball franchise in the country. But they still want more, and Doyle wants to give it to them.

To do that, he’ll have to do two things: veto the changes JFC made to the school finance system, and veto the property tax freeze.

If he does both, he’ll hand schools authority to spend about half a billion dollars more. Then, he’ll have another problem: the budget doesn’t provide that half-billion dollars.

He can cross out one number and write in a smaller one – but not a bigger one. That’s not an option. But he can find another number elsewhere in the budget, and cross out everything between it and the number he wants to change.

For example: the Governor wants to spend $500 on something, but JFC only allowed $400 for that item.

That becomes this: “the Governor wants to spend $500 on something, but JFC only allowed $400 for that item.”

See? Now it says what he wants it to.

Of course, there’s no telling where he might find the numbers he wants, and what might be written on all the pages between them. The budget is over a thousand pages long. He could end up vetoing half of it just to change one number. It’s possible, but…

More likely he’ll make his two partial vetoes, and try to blame Republicans for the result: higher property taxes.

And if he does just veto the whole thing?

That will be fine with fiscal conservatives. If there’s no new budget, everything continues as is. No spending increases at all, anywhere. The Legislature will do a little more work and send him, essentially, the same thing again. He’ll be faced with exactly the same problems.

It’s a powerful veto pen. But it’s not unstoppable.

Progressive Principle vs. Progressive Pragmatism

It’s always fun to watch liberals sniping at each other.

The occasion this time: Wisconsin's Democratic Convention, held over the weekend.

That disturbance in the Force you did not feel is nothing more than adaptation. Thanks to Ed Garvey’s “People’s Legislature” meetings, large gatherings of regular Democrats feel more like light breezes than exploding planets.

During the convention, liberal blogger Xoff (real name: Bill Christofferson) wrote disapprovingly of the far-left “progressive” wing’s anger at Governor Jim Doyle, a Democrat who has governed more to the center than they’d like:

“…before Democrats talk of sitting on their hands in 2006, or half-heartedly supporting Doyle, or even flirting with a third-party candidate, they need a reality check. For now and for the foreseeable future, Doyle is all they've got.”

Ed Garvey, self-assigned leader of that same “progressive” wing, took issue with that:

“The Doyle Party seems convinced that the path to victory in 2006 and beyond is to assume the progressives will get in line and vote Democrat. They will be lectured ad nauseum: ‘Would you rather have Mark Green or Scott Walker as governor?’”

Ideological purity or political pragmatism. Both sides have to deal with that question, these days more than ever. Is it better to settle for less, or better to risk all in order to (eventually) get everything?

Few of us insist on absolute purity. In a representative democracy, we can’t often have everything just the way we want it.

Democracy is a synonym for compromise. I vote Republican. One of my best friends votes Democrat. I’m conservative, he’s liberal. I’m right and he’s wrong, but that’s beside the point. We can’t both have our way, so we play the large-scale version of rock-paper-scissors, and we vote for it.

Even among fellow Republicans, this happens. We don’t all agree on every facet of every issue, so we compromise. We prioritize. We realize that something is better than nothing, and we support candidates that come closest to our own views.

The other side does this, too. Why else did John Kerry win the primary last year?

Not because he was the most “progressive.” An east-coast blueblood who married millions twice, broke spending records, voted for the Patriot Act, and was both for and against the war? Not “progressive” at all.

It’s not like there weren’t other candidates available. Howard Dean provided (and still does) the red meat true believers love. John Edwards talked economic class. Dennis Kucinich spouted pacifism. Al Sharpton hustled race.

And then there was Ralph Nader: against the war, against the Patriot Act, supportive of restrictive campaign finance laws, pro-environmentalism, pro-soak-the-rich, pro-abortion. Progressivism’s darling, he spoke the language of the far-liberal Left.

Compromising Democrats did the smart thing, and ignored him. What should the purists have done? The true Progressives?

Well, according to Garvey, true progressivism “requires a belief that the powers that ought to be can prevail over the powers that be. Progressives must be less concerned about a single election than with the philosophical framework within which the candidates operate and support those who believe in economic and social justice.”

Ah. So, Garvey went with his philosophy, and supported Nader? No. His advice was: “…we can do what Jim Hightower suggested when he spoke in Madison recently: ‘We will get Kerry across the finish line and then continue the progressive movement on Nov. 3.’”

About Nader: “While no one expected Nader to win in 2000, many were determined to help the Green Party gain strength. In other words, there was a rational reason to support his candidacy.”

But by 2004, supporting either Nader or the Greens had suddenly become irrational. Just look through Garvey’s own writings in October and November of last year. He’d become a Kerry man.

Confusing, isn’t it? I thought principle trumped pragmatism for Garvey and his progressives. That’s what he said. If he couldn’t support Nader, shouldn’t he at least have supported the official Green candidate?

Or, was he letting political pragmatism take precedence? If so, his objection to Xoff seems silly – Democrats can, in fact, ignore the progressives. Garvey will be there when they need him, and he’ll bring the rest along.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might suspect that Garvey’s a plant. Go on, Ed, make yourself the leader of Wisconsin’s progressives. Be the King of the Moonbats. Once they’re all listening to you, you deliver the votes.

His mouth might object, but his history doesn’t. Looks like Xoff's got nothing to worry about.

Doyle: Both Cuts and Taxes

Making snap judgments isn’t always wise, but as today’s quick-draw press releases attacking the Republicans’ recently-finished budget prove: it can be fun to watch.

The favorite line of attack was, naturally, that Republicans are cutting education. They’re making war on children, destroying opportunities for our kids both in school and in life.

Stock up on batteries and bottled water. Civilization is going down.

From a release issued this morning by Governor Jim Doyle: “Their proposal would force school districts to choose between a massive property tax increase or laying off thousands of teachers, raising class sizes, and cutting programs…”

Later in same release: “Not only will the Republican budget cause the largest education cut in decades, but it also sets taxpayers up for a huge property tax increase.

Oops. A little confusion on the prepositions, there. First it’s either cuts or taxes, then it’s cuts and taxes. As it turns out, he was right the second time. More on that later.

He went on: “The Republican budget proposal…would cut Wisconsin’s schools by over $400 million – the largest education cut in decades.”

Decades? I assume he means percentage-wise. Just fifteen years ago, $400 million was almost 25% of the state’s K-12 funding. It’s hard to believe there was a cut larger than that even further in the past.

And, of course, it isn’t a “cut.”

Others were more prudent with their vocabulary. WEAC (the teacher’s union, which has people versed in both math and grammar) did better: “…force communities to either raise taxes or severely harm kids and undermine Wisconsin’s great schools.”

Senator Bob Jauch (D-Poplar) called it “an inexcusable assault on children,” but was specific in calling it a “cut” only compared to the Governor’s plan. Senate Minority Leader Judy Robson (D-Beloit) also called it a cut “…compared to what the Governor proposed.”

Just to be clear: the Governor proposed an $850 million increase. Republicans proposed a $450 million increase. Schools will get more money, not less.

More from Senator Robson: “…these drastic cuts will not allow school districts to function successfully. The only way schools will be able to function is to ask the voters to approve a referendum.”

Chicken Little-doomsday, with just a hint of “so what?” Something wrong with asking the voters for more?

She went on: “If approved, the referendum will come out of the pockets of property taxpayers rather than out of the state tax base as the Governor proposed.”

And the “state tax base” comes from…where? From the budget fairies, perhaps?

And: “The last thing homeowners need is another property tax increase.”

Well, finally something we can agree on. Put Senator Robson down as supporting the property tax freeze. Oh, no, wait.

The fact is that $450 million – the Republican increase in K-12 funding – is a lot of money. It’s over $500 per student, on top of the more than $10,000 per student we’re already spending. Over $11,000 more per classroom, when we’re already spending over $200,000 per classroom.

If that’s not enough, then nothing ever will be. Which, of course, is the honest truth. No amount of spending will ever be enough for WEAC and their Democrats.

While I give Jauch and Robson credit for accuracy (if not completeness), they have missed something else. An obvious fact they seem to be ignoring. The Governor’s veto.

School funding in Wisconsin is governed by a “revenue cap.” Each year, the state calculates how much each district can spend, based on their numbers of new and returning students. The state pays most of it (nearly 2/3), and the districts raise the rest through property taxes.

To reach their funding number, Republicans did two things: they made changes to the revenue formula, and they passed the property tax freeze. To back up his rhetoric, Governor Doyle will have to veto both.

He can do that, but it leaves him with another problem: a much bigger financial obligation. Governor Doyle planned to fund his $850 million increase with gimmicky money-shifting. Republicans have removed those gimmicks, and the Governor can’t put them back. He can only cross things out.

That’s why I say Doyle was right in predicting both “cuts” (in his definition, anyway), and higher taxes. He’ll restore the revenue cap with his veto pen, but unless he can find a whole lot of money in a very tight budget, he won’t be able to fund the state’s share. That means rapidly rising property taxes.

Of course, he’s noticed that the taxpayers are about fed up with that.

Pills, Jobs, Embryos, and Rhetoric

Can’t we at least get the facts straight?

Take this headline from today’s Wisconsin State Journal, for example: "Birth control in jeopardy, some lawmakers say."

The lead: "Forty years after the U.S. Supreme Court declared married couples could legally obtain contraceptives, a woman's right to birth control is again under threat, several Democratic lawmakers and women's advocates say."

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story was similar.

Why were they writing about this? Today was the 40th anniversary of a Supreme Court decision that “legalized birth control for married women.” That’s not much of a story, so a couple of Democrats brought out a pro-contraceptive bill – well, more of a press release, really – to create one.

The storyline: Republicans want to roll us back to 1965. Outlaw family planning.

What? Why, no, nobody’s really trying to do that. What’s your point?

Despite what the newspapers printed, the issue at hand isn’t whether contraceptives should be legal. The issue is whether the University of Wisconsin should advertise, promote, and hand out “emergency contraception,” the morning-after pill, to students.

The morning-after pill is, essentially, a strong hormonal drug. It can prevent a pregnancy – or it can abort one. It can also have serious side effects for the women who use it.

The UW was hawking this to students – make sure and get some of this before you go on Spring Break! – and offering over-the-phone prescriptions of the morning-after pill. Some lawmakers thought this was irresponsible, so they sought to stop it.

Note that the UW Hospital can still prescribe and dispense the morning-after pill. UW health services can still educate about and hand out any other form of contraception, including normal birth control pills (or even abstinence).

But, never mind all that. Planned Parenthood calls it the UW Birth Control Ban. Whichever side you support, isn’t that a little dishonest?

That’s the game, I suppose. Make something sound better/worse than it really is, to promote/oppose it, even if your characterization amounts to lying.

To be fair, Democrats will accuse Republicans of the same thing. The Job Creation Act, for example, was legislation aimed at streamlining state regulation – remove some red tape, make it a little easier for businesses to expand and grow.

Opponents attacked it as an anti-environment bill, which was ridiculous enough, but they also attacked it on the grounds that it didn’t actually create any jobs.

How can we call it the Job Creation Act?

This was actually just a misunderstanding: see, the Job Creation Act makes improvements to Wisconsin’s business environment – it gets the government out of the way. This, we hope, will encourage the private sector to create jobs.

To the liberal activist environmentalist left, creating jobs is up to the government. If the government is “out of the way,” nothing must be happening. Thus, the “Job Creation Act” is a misnomer.

Another example: stem cell research. One side supports all stem cell research, but especially (for some reason) embryonic stem cell research, requiring the destruction of embryonic human beings. The other side supports every kind of stem cell except embryonic.

The pro-embryo-destruction side refuses even to acknowledge other sources of stem cells, even though some of them – adult stem cells, especially – have shown far greater promise. In fact, embryonic stem cells haven’t produced any medical advances at all. Adult stem cells have, and they’re entirely non-controversial.

The legislature’s Joint Finance Committee recently considered banning state (tax-money) support of embryonic stem cell research. Other kinds, like adult stem cell research, would still have tax money available to them.

Democrats went ballistic, saying the measure would “severely curtail life-saving medical research. They called embryonic stem cell research “ethical,” a “catalyst for economic growth,” and “research that holds such potential and promise.”

No evidence for any of that – not like adult stem cells. I can’t explain it. And at no time did they use the word “embryonic.”

For the record, both the State Journal and Journal Sentinel did use “embryonic,” and in their lead paragraphs.

Now, it’s true: I’m conservative. I’m biased in favor of the Republicans. That bias could be influencing me on this.

But which is further from the truth: calling a so-far useless branch of medical science “life-saving,” or calling a deregulatory bill a “Job Creation Act?” Claiming that less government bureaucracy is good for the economy, or that limiting the use of a powerful hormonal drug is the same as a ban on birth control?

Some things, even partisanship can’t explain.

Cheese on the Ticket

Fighting Bob LaFollette ran for President In 1912. If not for Teddy Roosevelt’s ill-timed interference, he might have won.

He tried again in 1924, but with much less of a shot than the first time. No Wisconsinite has come as close to the White House before or since.

Oh, we’ve had a few people rise pretty far, most recently Tommy Thompson as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Before him, Les Aspin was Clinton’s Secretary of Defense. Governor Jeremaiah Rusk was the nation’s first Secretary of Agriculture. William Vilas was Secretary of the Interior. Somebody named John Gronowski was Postmaster General under JFK and LBJ.

Unless you count Golda Meir, that’s the closest we’ve come to a chief executive.

But hold your horses. Cows. Whatever. There could be another chance on the horizon.

No, I’m not recycling the months-old speculation about Tommy’s political future – speculation that was limited mainly to one column I wrote back in November. Thompson was on a few medium-long lists of potential 2008 contenders at the time. After the Homeland Security office opened up, he very quickly blipped across the radar as a potential replacement. I thought that could be the springboard to something bigger.

We know he’s off the list today, because the bookies aren’t keeping track of him. Yes, bookies are keeping odds on various candidates, and their chances of winning the Big Chair in 2008. Condoleezza Rice leads the pack at 1.5 to 1, followed closely by Hillary (1.9 to 1).

Tommy isn’t included, but another Wisconsin pol is. Russ Feingold, Wisconsin’s uber-liberal three-term Senator. A politician so talented he’s both to the left of Paul Wellstone and to the right of John McCain.

He’s listed at 17-1.

Why not Feingold? His name recognition must be relatively good, thanks to McCain-Feingold. He’s Jewish – everybody thought that was a real asset for Gore-Lieberman in 2004. He’s a Senator, but with a maverick, outsider reputation.

Most of all, he comes from a swing state – a very tight swing state, that hasn’t voted Republican in a presidential election since 1984, but seems to be headed in that direction. Having Feingold on the ticket would swing Wisconsin decisively into the Democrats’ corner.

He’s got some downside: two divorces, which won’t kill his chances, but won’t help them, either. His position on campaign finance reform will make him look hypocritical, if he tries to raise the kind of money a Presidential campaign needs.

But the voters expect accusations of hypocrisy during a campaign. By the time the swing voters are making up their minds, it will be little more than background static. More likely, it would hurt him in the primary – unless he does what Edwards did in 2004, and stays in just long enough to prove he’s invaluable as a running mate.

Wisconsin’s too small? So is Arkansas. And judging by recent Presidential races, locking up our ten electoral votes from day one might be just the right enticement to put him on the ticket.

It’s an intriguing possibility for the historically-minded Cheesehead who finds it appalling that Ohio has eight former Presidents to its credit, while we’ve got none.

Intriguing, too, for those who are still wiped out from the last two elections. Few of us would care to admit it, but after the 2000 campaign, its aftermath, and then the sheer intensity of the 2004 campaign, we’re pooped. Ready to take a cycle off, and be a nice safe non-swing state for a while.

Yeah, okay, not if that means having Hillary in the White House, or Kerry, or Edwards, or even Feingold. Lieberman, maybe, but he’s too boring to ever win.

And, what the heck, while we’re speculating, let’s not forget that Tommy is still out there. Out of the game? Well, yes, at least temporarily, but working at – what, ten different private sector jobs? Making contacts. Getting to know people he maybe hasn’t had a chance to meet before.

When it’s all said and done, Tommy’s still got the resume: four-term governor, HHS Secretary, creator of W-2 and School Choice. The SAGE class reduction program got started on his watch. The U.S. engaged the world on AIDS.

Whether you love those programs or hate them, agree or disagree, there’s a lot there to attract and/or appease a whole lot of voters.

Oh, and he’d put our ten electoral votes back into play, when the Democrats thought they were all wrapped up.

How about Clinton-Feingold vs. Rice-Thompson?

Stranger things have happened.