Doyle's '06 Dilemma

The word is out: Governor Doyle’s property tax “freeze” isn’t going to work. Not like he promised it would.

This isn’t a surprise. It was, in fact, predicted. Frequently. By several people and groups. At the time, those predictions were easily dismissed as partisan kidney punches from those who would criticize the Governor no matter what he did.

Not anymore. In Milwaukee, Waukesha, and Dane County, tax levies are going up farther, faster than Governor Doyle promised.

This discrepancy between Doyle and reality isn’t exactly eye-popping – the numbers are relatively modest. But they’ve been noticed, even by a normally pro-tax media. And these few examples won’t be the last, or the worst.

At one time, conventional wisdom was that a Governor Doyle who gave us a property tax freeze was a Governor Doyle assured of re-election, because that Governor Doyle has protected his right flank from the tax issue.

That wisdom seems in doubt today. In fact, it’s difficult to see what, if anything, Doyle has going for him heading into next year’s election season.

Well, okay, that’s going too far. He’s got the teacher’s union. Or, rather, they have him. One of those.

And he’ll have the pro-abortion lobby, and the pro-same sex marriage lobby.

Will he have the other labor unions? The government employee unions? Maybe. They surely won’t back a Republican. But…they don’t like Doyle, with his pledge to cut 10,000 workers over 8 years.

A pledge that he’s nowhere near fulfilling, by the way. And he’d be even further from this one, except for Republican changes to the budget this year.

In other words, Governor Doyle has part of what he’s supposed to have, just for being a Democrat. Part, but not all.

Plus, the promises that protected his right flank on fiscal issues in 2002 are gone, and worse – they’re in tatters. He can make the same promises again, but will conservative-leaning voters believe him?

Remember, during the 2002 election, Attorney General Jim Doyle outflanked two Democrat opponents by keying on voter anger over the state’s spending and taxing habits. Wisconsin’s finances were in the red, and nobody – that’s nobody – was willing to pay higher taxes.

Voters were unhappy with Governor McCallum’s performance, but even so, he might have won re-election were it not for Libertarian Ed Thompson’s entry into the race. Thompson gave dissatisfied conservatives a pseudo-credible alternative, and enough of them took it to turn the election to Doyle.

Today, the political landscape is different. Doyle is, clearly, trying to maintain his right flank where taxes are concerned. Trying, and failing – a situation that will continue to develop as more and more local governments announce their tax levies.

If taxes were the crux of the 2002 election, and if they’re similarly important next year, Governor Doyle has hurt his chances badly.

What can he lean on instead?

The rabid support of the teacher’s union. Yes. Other die-hard liberal constituencies. Yes.

The tribal casinos? Doyle’s paid dearly for their 2002 campaign cash. His support of unbridled gambling has hurt him and, if large amounts of gambling cash are spent on his behalf again next year, it will hurt him again.

The business community? Governor Doyle signed Job Creation Acts I and II, but Republicans can take just as much credit for that, if not more, and with more credibility. Besides, that’s old news.

He balanced the budget? By using all the same tricks and gimmicks that he excoriated his predecessors for using. The structural deficit remains in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Sure, he can cite a few bland proposals – Kids First, Grow Wisconsin – of which most voters have never heard and from which they can and will see no visible return. That, and the “balanced” budget, and the tax “freeze.”

Oh, and one other thing: the economy. Assuming it keeps growing, Governor Doyle will take, and receive, credit for it – or at least he won’t be on the receiving end of voter anger over inflation and unemployment.

In the end, that might be the best strategy Doyle has – tout his programs, while settling for a draw on taxes and the budget, and hope nothing happens to get the voters angry.

It’s what he’s got. And it isn’t much.

Memo to Packers: This Is Important

Here’s the situation: less than two minutes to go in the first half, and you face a 1st and 10 from deep in your own territory. You’re down by four points, but sitting on two timeouts. It’s two-minute drill time, if you want to score before the half.

What would influence your decision? Being at home, in front of supportive fans, versus on the road, with a hostile crowd? Having an experienced veteran at quarterback, versus a largely untried youngster?

Probably, yes. But not the way you’d think.

The New York Giants, on the road Sunday in San Diego, faced this very situation. With 1:23 on the clock and two timeouts, facing first and ten from their 20-yard-line, they gave the ball to their second-year quarterback Eli Manning. Manning led his team 58 years in 8 plays, ending with a 40-yard field goal which brought them to within a point of the Chargers.

That was a little before 5 pm, central time.

Three hours earlier, the Green Bay Packers had been in the same spot. No, not the same spot, a better one. With 1:53 on the clock and two timeouts, they faced first and ten on their own thirteen.

Granted, the Packers had seven yards further to go, and the Tampa Bay defense is more fearsome than San Diego’s.

But while the Giants were away, the Packers were at home. And instead of a young and largely-unproven (despite the pedigree) quarterback, the Packers have a slam-dunk hall-of-fame 14-year veteran who’s run the two-minute drill more times than Manning has shaved in his lifetime. Successfully. He’s good at it.

And what’s more, this is important.

But, oh, never mind. Where the Giants pushed the ball upfield for a score, the Packers fiddle-faddled around, huddled up, wasted time, gained three total yards in three plays, and ran off the field for halftime.

With two timeouts still left to them. I’m sure they’ll look great on Coach Sherman’s mantle.

In football, a minute and a half can last an eternity. Ninety seconds never took so long to tick away. Not anywhere this side of an NBA playoff game.

And the Packers let it go, satisfied to hit the locker room down four points.

Let the record show: I remained optimistic after the Packers lost at Detroit two weeks ago. I refuse to relinquish that optimism.

But if we’ve got a losing season in store, I’ll look back on that one decision – the decision to not try – as the reason why.

When your team is 0-3, it’s easy – almost required – to highlight what’s going wrong.

But there’s a lot of good going on in Green Bay. In every way but the win-loss record, the Packers look better than they did last year. Yes, the running game is sputtering, but the playcallers are sticking with it. The defense is playing better, especially against the run. There are fewer missed tackles. And Brett Favre is playing, if possible, better than ever. The man can still make plays.

I’m no expert, but that’s how it looks to me. And yet…we’re 0-3. Not just 0-3, but a frustrating 0-3.

If it’s not a turnover, it’s a penalty wiping out a first down, or negating a third-down stop. It’s a bad call, a missed kick, a poorly-timed blitz, an off-tackle run that doesn’t quite make it to the first down marker.

And yet, what can they do about it? There’s no glaring inconsistency, no obvious hole to fill. It’s nothing, and it’s everything. Talk about an intangible. We’re talking about the nebulous difference between did and almost-did: the quality of get-it-done-ness.

Convert the third and two! Force a punt when you need it most! Punch the ball into the end zone instead of settling for the field goal!

They can’t do it. Particularly when the chips are down, this is an intangible the Packers simply lack.

How does one find it? I don’t know, but it can’t be by running meekly off the field instead of using your 1:53 and two timeouts to try and score. Green Bay used to play aggressive, charging, we’re-gonna-run-on-fourth-and-one-no-matter-what-part-of-the-field-we’re-on football. And they won.

Not anymore.

How I would have loved to see Favre getting animated near the end of that first half. No, not animated – livid. Demanding an aggressive play-call. Demanding that he be given a chance to score. To win.

Because, you know, this is football. This. Is. Important.

The Packers, unfortunately, at one level or another, don’t seem to agree.

Feingold: Victim of his Own Success

What to make of Russ Feingold?

A few weeks ago, we all had a grand old time sizing up his call/non-call for a definite/possible/gotta be flexible withdrawal date from the Iraqi quagmire. It was an announcement made for a single purpose: to gain the favor of the far left, and lift his profile for a run at the Presidency.

It might have worked too well. At least, from Feingold’s perspective. I shall explain.

The braying anti-war liberal left can, we assume, make or break any candidate. Why? Because they’re loud. Because they’re media- and (more importantly) Internet-savvy, which means you’d better have them on your side early or they’ll chew through your ankles well before the first primary.

And there’s a lot of overlap between the anti-war crowd and the pro-abortion, anti-business, and pro-Kyoto crowds. They’ve got a lot in common, most importantly a shared loathing of everything Bush. They will gnash and snarl and spray flecks of saliva over anything Bush does, or anything that reflects well on him.

Anything, like the easy confirmation of one of his Supreme Court nominees, which, with Senator Feingold’s help, is what we’re about to get.

Both Feingold and Senator Herb Kohl, Wisconsin’s two members of the U.S. Senate, voted yesterday to approve Judge John Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court. They were two of only three Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to do so.

At least one liberal spokesman wasn’t happy about it:

(President of People For the American Way Ralph G.) Neas called Feingold's vote "the major disappointment and the major surprise" for the group.

"I was expecting him to be one of the leaders to block the nomination of John Roberts," Neas said. "As someone who has supported Russ Feingold with our political action committee, we are totally bewildered. He abandoned us."

Feingold got himself onto the national political map by reading from the anti-war (anti-Bush) script. Having once drunk from the Kool-Aid well, one might figure he would keep right on drinking, and solidify his standing amongst the faithful.

One might figure he would vote against Roberts. But he didn’t.

Feingold had the luxury of doing whatever best suited his future ambitions. The final Senate vote is, barring catastrophe, a done deal. There is no filibuster on the horizon. Roberts will be confirmed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, whatever Feingold does.

In that case, why not vote no and keep the liberals happy?

I can think of several reasons, starting with this: Feingold might be honestly voting the way his integrity tells him to.

Nah.

What else? There has been speculation that Senate Democrats are letting Roberts off easy, to keep their claws sharp for the next nominee. This may be Feingold’s strategy as well.

It could also be that we’re two years away from the primary, and political interest groups are fickle. Feingold doesn’t have to kowtow to the extreme left with every vote just yet.

But here’s my favorite possibility: Feingold voted yes to stay in good with the frontrunner, Senator Hillary Clinton, who has already announced that she’ll vote no.

Hillary has brushed liberal groupspeak aside several times recently, with comments on abortion, votes on homeland security and on the war. She can do this and get away with it, because she’s got more built-in advantages than any other potential candidate. She can be less responsive to the terminal left and still expect to contend for their support.

Common wisdom says Feingold is unlikely to win the nomination, but would make a great choice for the second seat. Whatever else he is, Feingold is smart and savvy. He knows what it will mean to win over the rabid left. It means any other candidate who doesn’t toe the same line gets mauled.

Hillary’s trying to moderate, to be the “can win” candidate in ’08. The more unified the Hard Left becomes behind one candidate, the more she – and the other candidates, too – will have to move left. That’s bad news for them.

The candidate who caused it will not be appreciated. The candidate who caused it won’t be the VP.

It borders on irony: when the rabid left latched onto Feingold for his pro-pacifism, it might have given him a scare. His vote for Roberts might be making up for that.

Walking on Peanut Shells

It’s a common phenomenon in politics, if a phenomenon can be common.

“Politics makes strange bedfellows” is how we describe it. On the other hand, “if you can’t drink their liquor, eat their food, take their money, and still vote against them in the morning, you don’t belong in this business.”

For example, who do you suppose might have said the following: “…we have eliminated almost all the complaints against the photo ID card.”

Some right-wing racist, probably. Right?

Wrong. Those words, in favor of requiring photo I.D. at the polls on Election Day, were uttered by former President Jimmy Carter.

That’s right – Jimmy Carter, peanut mogul and peacenik, ridiculed in right-wing Web pages for years as the guy who never met an America-hating dictator or a tyrant-affirming election he didn’t like.

He’s on our side now.

Carter, along with former Reagan and Bush aide James Baker III, headed a task force looking at ways to eliminate some of the complaints and problems we’ve experienced on recent Election Days.

An excerpt from the letter they – Carter and Baker – submitted with their report:

We are recommending a photo ID system for voters designed to increase registration with a more affirmative and aggressive role for states in funding new voters and providing free IDs for those without driver’s licenses. The formula we recommend will result in both more integrity and more access.

In a variety of news stories on the subject, Carter comes off as – no surprise here, really – wishy-washy. He doesn’t like it, necessarily, started off against it, still opposes his home state’s photo ID law because there’s a charge for it – it amounts to a “poll tax.”

But, bottom line, he backs the idea as he and Baker have presented it.

From a transcript of his and Baker’s appearance on PBS’ Newshour:

We require in our recommendations that the voter ID card be free of charge. And we require that every state have an active recruitment program to go out and find people who are not registered and give them voter identification.

So we really make sure, also, that if somebody comes forward between now and 2010 without a photo ID card, they can have a provisional ballot and after that, they've got 48 hours to go and bring in adequate identification. So we have eliminated almost all the complaints against the photo ID card.

Since the announcement, conservatives have been positively gleeful – how will Wisconsin Democrats respond to this, their own former President taking the exact opposite position?

Wisconsin Democrats have been…silent. Yes, there is some response from the liberal side of the Cheddarsphere. Xoff writes: “Jimmy Carter was taken to the cleaners on this one. That's no reason we should follow him.” Uberliberal Ed Garvey, writing at FightingBob.com, simply blames Baker for the whole thing, implying, I guess, that Carter is too stupid to know what he’s saying.

But they’re bloggers. From Wisconsin’s actual elected Democrats? The ones who have opposed Photo ID from day one?

Nothing. Not even a press release about today’s vote in the Senate, where Republicans (and two Democrats) fell a single vote short of overriding Governor Doyle’s veto of Photo ID. Nothing. No smugness. No bragging. No crowing about how they stopped Republicans from disenfranchising minorities and old folks.

It’s almost as though they think their position is weak. It’s as if the pro-voter-fraud side (now, now, let’s not take cheap shots – of course I mean the anti-secure-elections side) thinks this undermines their position, somehow.

Not that their position needs further undermining, mind you.

And, of course, Carter’s announcement does undermine them. When a beloved party father takes a firm position on something, it’s extremely difficult for the party faithful to go the other way. This is why Republicans, who normally dismiss Carter as a Nobel-kissing attention monger, are so happily embracing him now.

This isn’t just a conservative or Republican thing: why, for example, is John McCain so well-liked by the media? And when have liberals ever taken to a soldier like they did to Wesley Clark?

For my part, I’m as amused as everyone else by Carter’s announcement. I haven’t agreed with him on anything since he said inflation’s too high and we’ve gotta get those hostages home.

Sometime soon, perhaps he’ll recant. Come around to the liberal way of thinking, realize he’s taken the wrong side. That will be fun.

Until then, I’ll sit back and enjoy. Liberal discomfort goes so very well with peanut butter.

Park It, Christian Soldier

Senator Feinstein, will the fact that you are a woman affect your decisions as a member of the U.S. Senate?

Seems like a silly question, doesn’t it? Of course it will. Feinstein herself not only affirms this, she holds it up as a bonus.

"As the only woman on the committee, I have an additional role to play: representing the views and concerns of 145 million American women during this hearing process." That’s what Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) said during Judge John Roberts’ confirmation hearing.

Meaning: as a woman, she has a different and valuable perspective on things. She sees things that men wouldn’t, sees them as men wouldn’t. As a man, I quite agree. Women do see things differently, and this can be extremely helpful.

Varied perspectives are good. We want them, and even if we didn’t, it would be ridiculous to suggest that Feinstein put her female-ness aside for the sake of her Senate duties. As ridiculous as asking Barack Obama to put aside his race, Robert Byrd his southern-ness, or Teddy Kennedy his wealth, privilege, and pomposity.

They can’t do it. It’s not possible. Gender, race, origin, background are part of who we are. They’re part of what makes us…us. Intrinsic to our very natures.

And besides, telling Senator Feinstein that she should act as though she’s not a woman would be sexist. A political suicide attempt.

Religion, however, is not granted the same status.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," she said during Roberts’ confirmation hearing, before asking him: "My question is: Do you?”

“The separation of church and state.” The “church” – meaning the institution, the hierarchy of authority – can’t be the government (take part in it, yes; be it, no). And the “state,” meaning the government, can’t control or influence the church.

That’s what the phrase is supposed to mean, but that’s not the common interpretation today. Today, separation of church and state means that no expression of faith – including a personal history of having said faith – is welcome in the halls of government.

Gonna serve in government? The coat rack is by the door. Leave your religion there.

But religious faith isn’t a hat you can put on and take off at will. It’s not a switch you can turn on and off. Suggesting that it somehow is (a sentiment not at all limited to liberals and Democrats) implies a basic ignorance of what religious faith is.

Religion is more than a job, more than a hat to be worn when appropriate, a political position to be ignored when inconvenient. Real, sincere religious faith is more, even, than a way of life. It’s a building block. A worldview. It’s part of who you are.

Asking a person of faith to simply ignore that faith while at work is like asking Senator Feinstein to ignore her femininity. Not only can’t she do that, it would be ridiculous to suggest it.

When JFK ran for President in 1960, his Catholicism was an issue. This was more than simple ignorance or religious bigotry (although those were probably present, too): it was concern over whether the Pope – the absolute authority over all Catholics – would become de-facto President.

That seems less a factor today – notice that Roberts was asked whether he could leave aside his religious faith, not whether he could resist an order from the Pope.

Instead, today, the fear seems to be that Religious Fundamentalists want to establish a theocracy, in place of our constitutional republic.

This, too, exhibits a basic ignorance – not of Christianity, perhaps, but certainly of American Christians. American Christians, I feel safe in saying, understand that the constitutional protections which protect other faiths also protect their own.

A government powerful enough to give us everything is powerful enough to take everything away. A government that can interfere with another person’s religion can also interfere with our own. No, thanks.

Granted, there are those self- or media-styled religious “leaders” who make outrageous statements and make all Christians look bad. But then, that’s also a factor of ignorance – at least, that’s what we’re told, when anybody notices that a criminal is African American. We mustn’t paint all with a single brush, right?

That’s what Feinstein and her ideological brethren are doing. Not only that, but they’re excluding an entire worldview – a worldview held by millions – from participation in our government.

Not quite what the Framers had in mind, I bet.

Down From That Ledge!

Oh what a difference a year makes.

The date was September 14, 2004. A Tuesday. Packer Nation was basking in the glow of the team’s 24-14 (but not really that close) Monday Night Football win over the Carolina Panthers – a team expected to contend for the Superbowl.

The Packers were dominant, both running the ball (152 rushing yards) and stopping the run (38 rushing yards allowed). Even though they trailed for a few minutes in the second quarter, it never seemed in doubt that the Pack was in control. Final score: 24-14, including a garbage-time Panthers touchdown with less than five minutes remaining.

And on the following Tuesday…oh, yeah, we’re going to the Superbowl.

As any Packer fan can (and will profusely) tell you, the 2004 season turned out far differently than we all believed it would that Tuesday morning.

Fast forward almost a year: Monday, September 12, 2005. The Packers have just put in a performance so disappointing it could hardly have been worse. Maybe if it was Brett Favre, rather than Javon Walker, who left us for the season. That would have been worse. Otherwise, it seemed at times that they were purposely trying to lose.

And…among Packer fans, the reaction to the opening game of 2005 has been exactly the same, proportionate to the outcome, as the reaction to last year’s opening game. Which is to say: last year, we were way too excited over a single, if decisive, win.

This year, well, let’s all just stay away from sharp objects for a while, shall we?

It tends to annoy the people around me, but I’m an unapologetic optimist in all things, including football. So much so, I was still clinging to a thin thread of hope Sunday right up until the second straight sack on the second-to-last play of the game, setting up a 4th and 30 with virtually no time left on the clock.

Coulda happened, you know. If only the network had pre-empted the end of the game with a special viewing of “Heidi.”

Thus, I’m calling a halt to the doom and gloom. Yes, the Packers looked bad. As bad on Sunday as they looked good that Monday in Carolina. But predictions of a 6-10 season are both panicky and premature.

But, you argue, even a half-full glass is still half-empty! Very true. Still. A few notes that we might previously have overlooked:

• Going into Sunday’s game, the Packers were 5-8 in Detroit in the Brett Favre era. It’s not a place we normally expect to win – it’s just that the Lions have been so bad the last few years, we got used to wiping our feet on them.
  
  
• We punted – a lot – to one of the better punt returners in the game. He averaged 2 yards a return. B.J. Sanders finally found it. Ryan Longwell still has it. Special teams looked good.
  
  
• Tackling is improved. Grady Jackson looked positively Gilbert-like at times. Three quarters of the defensive backfield played admirably, and the fourth member has, according to reports, been relegated to the splintery end of the bench in front of the guy with the air horn.
  
  
• Donald Driver looks great in his TV commercials, especially the one where he wears women’s earrings.
  

See? There was more to be happy about Sunday than there was to be mad about last year, and we all know how that turned out. So, here’s what I predict for the remainder of this season:

• Favre will have two more awful games, in which his turnovers exceed his touchdowns by at least two to one. He and Ahman Green will also lead the team to improbable wins at least twice.
  
  
• Somebody will explain to Ahmad Carroll that the word “face” in the phrase “illegal hands to the face” includes anything above the neck, and he’ll actually listen.
  
  
• New defensive coordinator Jim Bates will build off of the game in Detroit to instill new confidence in his players, which will more than make up for Jackson and Cleditus Hunt playing fewer than half the defensive snaps on running downs.
  
  
• The Brewers will finish the season with a better than .500 record, missing the wild card spot by between 4 and 7 games.
  
  
• Andrew Bogut will accidentally scare the crap out of at least one Milwaukee gradeschooler during a school visit.
  
  
• The Packers will be NFC North champs.
  

When I turn out to be right, don’t forget where you read it.

Pee Wee Soccer and Fightin' Bob

What a whirlpool of conflicting spectacle and sensation this weekend is turning out to be.

First, the bittersweet: our second-youngest’s first venture into organized sports – his first-ever soccer game, on the first Saturday after his first full week of kindergarten. Ah, the sweet painful pangs of parenthood. Our youngest has begun his first foray into organized sports, too – he’s signed up for the 3-4 year old tumbling class.

Are they growing up? Or are they unbearably cute? Tough call.

More importantly, of course, is the end of our long national nightmare, otherwise known as the NFL off-season. Officially, I suppose, it ended Thursday night with the kickoff game, but that didn’t feel real. A football game on Thursday night. Felt like a preseason game.

Slight diversion: for the record, I can’t agree with predictions of a lousy season in Green Bay. Sure, Detroit has a good running back. Yes, Minnesota is always dangerous, even without His Egoness. Do I expect the Super Bowl? No. But the division?

I see no reason Green Bay can’t be division champs for the fourth straight year. And the only guy I really listen to agrees with me.

All of this, of course, must be taken in the context of much more serious matters: Chief Justice Rehnquist’s death, Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea, and especially the continued tragedy in New Orleans. It feels odd to enjoy soccer games and the NFL. Less weighty matters pushing heavier ones to the side, if only for a while.

Less weighty matters, such as…yes, youngling, a disturbance in the force, that is. And the source of it is less than a mile from my house.

The fourth annual Fighting Bob Fest is being held this weekend. A gathering of the Far Left’s far left, where the men are metrosexual, Republicans are fascist, and anyone using the term Chimpy McBushitler is being too soft.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: this event is always a conundrum for me. On one hand, it’s hard to stomach: so many hardened leftists gathering in my own home town. They expect 4,000 this year.

On the other hand, it gives me something to write about.

On the other hand, it makes me feel a little bit guilty. Not because it makes the light shine onto my cretinous Republican soul. Not because I finally realize that supporting President Bush, freedom in Iraq, the lives of the unborn, and the glory of free market capitalism is selfish and vindictive.

No, it’s because I think I ought to do something – organize a counter-protest (actually just a protest, but considering the “hell no, we won’t go” activists that form the core of Bob Fest’s fans, counter-protest just seems more right). I should shoot video of the speeches, or pass out Jesus Loves You flyers, or…well, something.

Attend. Blog. See if I get kicked out.

But on the other hand, what’s the point? Want to know what they’re going to say? Just head over to FightingBob.com with its proprietor, the über-liberal yet cunningly-pragmatic Ed Garvey. Visit there every day for a week. Now you know what Fighting Bob Fest will be like.

And yet, on the other hand…no, no, we’re still on the same hand. Want to know what Fighting Bob Fest will be like this year? Visit Democratic Underground. Or DailyKos. Or find some other deep pit of writhing venomous virtual spewsmiths where Dick Cheney would be the Antichrist except that, since Christians are all gay-baiting hatemongers anyway, the Antichrist must be a good guy.

There you go. Now you’ve got it. You know what Fighting Bob Fest is. It’s a Deaniac chatroom, just with real people who can see each other.

Yes, I know, that’s only on the surface. It’s the show, put on for the masses. The means of both venting anger and making lists of the angry, so the leaders can steer them come next election cycle.

You watch: Ed Garvey supported John Kerry last time, and never mind his principles-first definition of Progressivism. He’ll support Doyle, come next November. And he’ll steer Wisconsin’s faux-MoveOn crowd along with him.

There you have it. Fighting Bob Fest in a nutshell.

Oh, all right. Since I’m slinging the insults this time, I’ll stop by, just to see if I’m wrong. If I can spare it, between family events. It’s only fair.

I wonder: do kid-size shin guards protect against ankle biting?

Why We Can't Get Along

Does it seem like the tone of political discourse has gotten worse?

Having not been part of said discourse for more than a few years, I can’t say for sure that it has. Looking back on history, I’m even less sure.

But it wouldn’t be a difficult case to make. Not by a long shot.

Take, for example, this op-ed by Janice Eisen on the Photo I.D. debate, published in last week’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (emphasis added):

Most Wisconsinites probably feel - whether or not they'd admit it - that the fewer poor black people who vote the better… Republicans won't admit that they're trying to reduce the number of votes from the urban poor because, even in today's conservative environment, most people outside the GOP machinery still consider it shameful to try to suppress voter turnout among a particular group.

Eisen’s piece came to my attention via liberal blogger Xoff, who finished the thought off:

The GOP's real concern is that too many black people vote in Milwaukee, and they vote for Democrats.

Their arguments on Photo I.D. have been rebutted before, ad nauseum, so we won’t go over it again. Instead, let’s focus on the accusation. A serious one, to say the least.

By their reasoning, the winner of any low-turnout election is illegitimate, because of the sheer number of votes not cast. Who knows for whom those non-voting voters would have voted, had they voted? Probably for the other guy.

The logic isn’t original. Every politically active person knows: the goal is to get more of your votes to the polls than the other guy’s. That means turnout, Get Out The Vote efforts, phone banks, volunteers.

Surely, over the course of political history, politicos have also recognized the corollary: keep the other guy’s voters away from the polls. Somewhere, somewhen, someone has realized that most African Americans vote for Democrats, so if turnout is low among African Americans, it favors the Republicans. Somewhere, somewhen, someone has wondered whether there’s a way to keep said turnout low.

But these two aren’t talking about someone, somewhere, somewhen. They’re talking about you. If you’re a Republican, if you support Republicans, if you think it’s too easy to commit voter fraud in Wisconsin, if you support Photo I.D., then you are a racist.

And not just any racist. Not just an institutional racist who won’t see that our society reflexively favors white people. Not just somebody who subconsciously thinks “them,” without realizing it. Not even somebody who feels a sick vindication when the pictures of New Orleans looters are all of black people. Nope. If you meet the criteria above, you’re an active, Jim Crow, white-hood-and-poll-tax racist, who wants to actively prevent blacks from voting.

It’s not an honest policy difference. It’s good vs. evil, and we’re evil.

Our side isn’t faultless, of course. We’ve got our own moonbats. Plus, we act as enablers. Democratic Underground starts spouting on the Bushhitler story du jour, and we gleefully report their insanity, daring “mainstream” leftists to either defend or denounce it. Then our own moonbats take their shots back, and the other side uses them as political fodder. Repeat.

Are things worse, today, than ever before? Not really. In 1828, Gilbert Knapp (founder of Racine) said of Presidential candidate Andrew Jackson “I consider him to be a cut-throat and a murderer, and his wife a strumpet.”

So negative campaigning, name-calling, negative innuendo have been part and parcel with politics at least since then, and probably longer.

The difference may be this: modern communication means any moonbat can amplify his or her voice well beyond what was possible in the pre-Internet age. Simple geographical diffusion once kept moonbats away from each other, but today they’re able to gather, unionize, organize. This makes them a far more potent force, and gives other wannabe moonbats confidence in their moonbatism.

What to do? To begin with, recognize moonbatism on both sides of the fence. Refuse to take it seriously. Refuse, even, to use it as your own political weapon.

Possible? Maybe not. Xoff and Eisen talk like moonbats, but they’re hardly on the fringe. They’re closer to the mainstream than one might hope.

The thing is, as long as they’re throwing around those accusations, neither one will influence anyone except the people who don’t need to be influenced – the people who already believe their moonbat accusations. It’s just no way to talk politics.

Helplessness

Helplessness. It’s not something we’re used to. Not something we’re inclined to accept.

Last night, NBC aired a special news report on Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath. Specifically, it focused on the people stuck in New Orleans – tens of thousands of them, in the Superdome and the Convention Center.

They’re in a bad way. No food, no water, or very little of them. A trickle. Filthy conditions getting worse. Violence growing along with the threat of disease and dehydration. The television camera panned group after group of people who wanted to know: why hasn’t help come?

I’ve often wondered about refugee camps in other countries – places where you sit, and wait, and hope a truck comes and that you’ll be able to get close enough to the front of the mob so you can grab some of whatever they’re handing out. And if you can’t, your family goes hungry. Again.

Why would you ever stay in such a place?

One of two reasons: either there’s no place else to go, or if there is, you can’t get there.

For many of the people I saw on TV, it was the latter. Too old, too young, sick, hurt, or trying to protect a family – you can’t go on a 20-mile hike over dangerous ground with a 3-year-old. Or with an 80-year-old.

They tried to ride out the storm in a public shelter, or in their own homes, because they didn’t have the means to get out, or because, well, who knew it would be that bad? Who foresaw the levees breaking, and water flooding so high I couldn’t get above it if I stood on my own shoulders?

So now they’re stuck, more or less, at the mercy of whatever help can get to them. But help is having a tough time doing that.

And…why? That’s the question that kept coming to mind, watching these images of crowds of desperate people. Why can’t we, with all our wealth and technological might, help these people?

There are lots of reasons, but the basic fact is, we were overwhelmed. We, the most powerful nation on Earth. A people who won’t admit there’s any obstacle too big to overcome. Who doesn’t believe in the no-win scenario. We have been brushed aside like so many ants.

Sure, relief efforts are underway. We’re moving at light speed, compared to what other parts of the world could do. Or so I read somewhere.

On Wednesday, WTMJ radio in Milwaukee started taking donations to help the effort. By about 5:30 that afternoon, they’d collected over $400,000. And that’s just from their listeners. The outpouring, nationwide, is going to be overwhelming in itself.

But then what? That money has to be collected, and given to someone to buy supplies…somewhere. Gather them up…somewhere. Find transportation, move it all to Louisiana and Mississippi, get it staged and distributed to the people who need it.

Somehow, someway. Somewhen. But it takes time, and organization.

It will happen. In fact, as I write this, I see a headline about help reaching the Convention Center. But Katrina was four days ago.

For four days, we’ve been completely overwhelmed. Lost. Helpless.

It’s the helplessness that gets me the most. I think of the movie “Schindler’s List.” The scene in which the Nazis truck all the children away, leaving anguished parents not knowing where they’re going, or if they’ll ever see them again. Or the little girl in the red dress, all alone, hiding under her bed. Or the mother in “Titanic,” singing her daughters to sleep so they wouldn’t be afraid when the water came. Because she couldn’t save them.

The refugee camps in Sudan. The school children in Beslan.

They weren’t helpless yesterday, but they are today.

That’s what scares me. Not the material loss, or even the threat of physical harm. It’s the idea that someday, something might happen, and I’ll be completely unable to stop it. Unable to protect my family from it. Able only to wait, watch, and hope for a bottle of water so my kids will have something to drink.

I don’t ever want to be there, but then, neither did the people in New Orleans. They planned, too. Maybe not each individual, but the city, the state. Plans were made, contingencies drawn. For all the good they did.

Which means one thing: no matter how much we plan and prepare, we’re not now, and never will be completely in control.

Scary, but true. Someday, somehow, we’re going to be helpless again.