Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Tough stuff. I like that Green is pro-life, but says nothing of necessary/ethical financial and social contributions directed to new or future mothers in need. Too bad he supports the gay marriage amendment, too. Both disappoint me on campaign reform; I'd rather see them pledge to be critical of their parties' negative campaign practices and promise/practice ethical campaigns and discourse themselves.
I think Mark Green is most likely to use the word gainsay.A useful exercise: see what Doyle has vetoed in the past two years. Assume Green would not have vetoed the same bills. Are you glad or sad that the bills aren't law? For example, the Pharmacist Protection Bill. Would it be a good idea for Pharmacists to be able to deny you your prescriptions willy nilly? He vetoed a bill banning cloning. The bill requiring a photo ID to vote (I think that was overridden?) The bill designating Hwy 14 Ronald Reagan Highway. The concealed carry law. It's a long list.
Green should think about touting "taking our religious and personal practice of marriage out of the hands of the government" instead of proposing the gay marriage amendment. Heck, everyone should! It doesn't have to affect taxation . . .
http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/large/061031SCgreen.pdfThat would be the State Supreme Court's decision to not rule on the Green / Elections Board action until after the election.I'm with the dissenters. If nothing else, vote against Dirty Political Tricks.
Based on this comparison (I know nothing about the candidates), Green's "republican" proposals are such watered-down stuff, why bother with the change? If he proposed aggressive support for school vouchers, or if put nuclear power ahead of ethanol he might have something. Doyle wins on the social issues: Same Sex Marriage, Abortion, and Death Penalty.
why bother with the change?Because Doyle is dirty. From the grimy Indian casino contracts and supreme court case, to the ongoing federal investigations of pay-to-play, to the travel contract crime, to the election board reversal collusion - it stinks, plain and simple. Just last week a story popped up about the new dorm being built at UWM - for no apparent reason, it's being financed through a shell corporation, with the result that none of the state bidding rules have to be followed - and surprise, surprise, every single contractor has made non-trivial contributions to Doyle, and construction has been started even though the DNR has not yet given its required approval. I wonder if they know "something" about the DNR's decision-making process?On the issues, I'm probably close to neutral between the two, but clean government is important to me so that even when I lose on the issue, I at least know I lost fair.
Vote for Green. Because ... well, because he's married to my second cousin and they sent us a really pretty yellow dress when my first daughter was born.[Okay, okay ... but it can't be much worse of a reason than some voters have ... ]
Doyle has alienated many of the rank and file. He also hasn't made the best supreme court appointments. He tried to sell the casino rights permanently. He did inherit a huge deficit, and has managed that quite well. I don't think Green will do much of anything. He may try and get tax breaks that may only raise the deficit. Also, his ads about people not getting into the U.W. or leaving Wisconsin are pretty ridiculous.They both are involved in less than admirable means of raising funds.Flip a coin.
Green and Doyle are indistinguishable on a number of items. I'll stick to the ones I care about and they differ substantially on.Green is right on using the tax code to expand health care coverage. That he also supports tort reform at the same time is interesting. He and Doyle are very similar, the only difference being that Doyle has a record of accomplishment in this area and Doyle vetoed the taxt deductibility because it doesn't help the poor. Problem is, it helps someone. Someone who might be a small business that creates jobs. I'd side with Green on that sliver of a basis and the fact that importing drugs from Canada is just pandering to the old.On taxes Doyle has a good record, but opposing a TABOR is kind of silly. Exempting pensions from taxation is a great idea by Green, though I do not understand his credit to help immigrants naturalize. That cost is there as a deterrent to immigration. That worries me.I'm worried that neither candidate supports vouchers. But Doyle's backing by the largest teacher's union in the state all but tips the scales to Green. I might vote Green, but I'd want clarification on his position w/r/t immigration first.I don't vote for teachers' union candidates. It hurts kids.
Green is the Democrat in this race? WTF??? I thought he was the Republican. LOL.
No, Green is the Republican.I don't vote for teachers' union candidates.Me neither. That would be a hard tip of the scales in Green's direction for me.
One of Green's big issues is expanding school choice in Milwaukee. Even though I don't live in Milwaukee, it's an issue that wins me over because, while Wisconsin's public education is often considered exceptional, it is failing in Milwaukee. When only 39 percent of boys graduate from public school in Milwaukee, with the numbers being even worse for African Americans and other minorities, its an embarrassment. I don't know if vouchers are the answer, but the Milaukee public schools as they are certainly aren't and as long as Doyle is in office, kids will be allowed to fail in order to placate the teachers union.
The reproductive rights issue is decisive for me. I know that being pro-life in cases of rape and incest is philosophically consistent, and I can respect someone for being consistent. In my opinion, however, that position is "big government" in the worst way. I also think Doyle did a decent job of managing the budget under extremely difficult circumstances.
I haven't decided who I'll vote for yet. Bullshit. Brownshirt is as brownshirt does.You keep pretending you're a "moderate," though. We all get a big fucking laugh out of it.
What the heck is it with the overuse of the word tout. Seriously.Also, in terms of Doyle, you'd think they'd be able to actually say things about his record, rather than things he touts. This could've been way more useful.
Henry said... Doyle wins on the social issues: Same Sex Marriage, Abortion, and Death Penalty.I agree that he wins on abortion and same sex marriage. But I'll take Green's position on the death penalty and allowing citizens to be licensed to carry guns. Doyle is fantasizing when he claims that life without parole is harsher than death, given that the vast majority of people convicted of heinous crimes fight so hard to get life in prison instead of death. Green's position is that people shouldn't be executed unless there's further assurance of guilt from DNA evidence. Doyle calls this "unconstitutional". Why would an extra limitation on the imposition of the death penalty after someone is convicted be unconstitutional? Even if it would be found unconstitutional as written, they certainly could find a way to write it so that it would not be overturned. Doyle should just say he believes the death penalty is immoral even when there's no chance a heinous murderer was falsely convicted. As far as the gun issue, Doyle uses fear-mongering in order to block law-abiding citizens from being able to carry guns. The criminals are already carrying. On the energy issue, I don't understand Doyle's irrational opposition to nuclear power. This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if global warming is a bit hyped up. We're told the world is ending, but yet there's all this resistance against allowing new-generation nuclear plants. Someone explain that to me. At the end of the day, though, I see nothing so good about Green, or so bad about Doyle, that would call for change. It's not like Wisconsin's an economic basketcase like here in Ohio. Far as I can terll, you guys are doing pretty well.
How does one take seriously a candidate that calls Roe v. Wade "sound"? I can respect his being pro choice, but it seems to me that to embrace Roe through anything but sheer necessity is to beg to be taken less seriously.Re WisJoe's comment, I understand Green's position to be that he doesn't believe that there should be exceptions for rape and incest, but if the legislature puts them in there, he will not veto them. Which is a position I support from a pragmatic point of view, in that I think that it's better to pass one law getting us 90% of the way there, and come back to the 10% problem later on in separate legislation a few years down the line, than go for the full 100% and have it struck down by the courts.
How about the "concealed carry" and "death penalty" issues, Ann? I'd be curious to hear your views on those issues with your Constitutional expertise.
Because Doyle is dirty.See, I'm just playing the game. Didn't know that from the Wispolitic comparison.Simon, I would agree with you about Roe v. Wade if these guys were running for a judgeship. But they're not, so Doyle's legal musings wouldn't affect my vote. As I hope someday that these candidates' positions regarding abortion actually matter, I can certainly say I prefer Doyle's prospective response over Green's.I would go with Green on concealed carry and Milwaukee's school choice program. Did Doyle really veto the Ronald Reagan highway designation? How petty can you get?Is there a third party candidate?
Who would Rudyard Kipling vote for?
Doyle uses fear-mongering in order to block law-abiding citizens from being able to carry guns. The criminals are already carrying.Ding ding ding goes the Irony Meter!
Vote for Green. That way you could say "I voted for a Green candidate once" and it would have truthiness.Also: you already have a Doyle commenter and it would get mighty confusing.Madison Man: more irony--Doyle was my law prof for Professional Ethics. Those that can, do...
Did Doyle really veto the Ronald Reagan highway designation? How petty can you get?As I recall, the rationale was that Wisconsin roads should be named after Wisconsinites -- not FIBs! (Gov. Doyle didn't put it that way, of course) Part of that highway is already the Frank Lloyd Wright Highway, for obvious reasons.
There are 11 different Indian tribes in Wisconsin. They aren't all one and the same, contrary to most Republicans' apparent thinking (is it the whole minorities "look alike" thing?). Further, there are enormous disparities in gaming income among the tribes, from the Forest County Potawatomi and Ho-Chunk Nation (wealthiest) to the Red Cliff and Sokaogon (Mole Lake) Chippewa (the poorest). For example, FCP or HCN earn more in their casinos in about three or four days than Red Cliff and Mole Lake put together earn in a year.Indian tribes are by FAR the biggest employers in 10 of Wisconsin's 72 counties, eight of which are rural where people have great difficulty finding year-round work with full benefits.From 1991 through 2002 or so, the tribes together paid the state about $130 million.After completing compact amendment negotiations with 10 of the 11 tribes by May, 2003, Governor Doyle had agreements for over $230 million in payments from the tribes over the next two years, with the state being paid a varying % of net win every year (net win is basically income before any expenses, like gross income). In return he agreed to long-term compacts, amendable at 25-year intervals rather than five with no more unilateral non-renewal provisions. He also allowed the tribes to offer addtional casino games like craps, roulette and keno so they could compete more effectively with casinos in neigboring states (MN and the UP of MI). This made particular sense because as a % payee the state wants the tribes to earn as much as possible.The highly political and awfully reasoned Panzer-Gard WI Supreme Court decision challenging these 2003 was a waste of time because it couldn't be enforced against the tribes (the state has no civil law jurisdiction nor can it enforce its gambling laws on Indian reservations). Basically, it was an enormous boodoggle by the legislature.So, let's see...$130 million over 11 years vs. $230 million over 2 years with about $75 to $100 million a year after that? Hmmm...I guess that's "dirty casino deal?"
Henry,I think that it does matter, even in this race, because the Governor appoints Justices to the Supreme Court. No less so than is true for judges, I would argue, how Doyle looks on Roe says much about what he regards to be the role of the judge and how he perceives to be the method of a good judge. If Doyle thinks that Roe is "sound" as an example of legal reasoning, it isn't entirely unreasonable to infer that he will appoint judges who he believes will approach legal problems in the same manner as did Justice Blackmun. So I would argue that it is relevant if one doesn't think highly of Roe's reasoning and if one doesn't think that today's judges in Wisconsin should emulate what passes for reasoning in that case.
Can't believe there's a Ho-Chunk Nation.Would've sworn it's a slang term for a fraternity.'Hoo Nation is just plain righteous, however.
If you want politics as usual then vote as usual. If you want to change politics, change your voting habits. Vote for the challenger. Although it is extremely unlikely, if the voting public would vote incumbents out for two election cycles politicians would pay attention. The other part of this logic is giving a candidate one term to prove themselves and if their results are not impressive, vote for the challenger. Currently there are no candidates in any race that I judge as effective and responsive to constituents. The real insanity is listening to campaign ads in which candidates claim what they will do once elected without anyone calling them on the fact they are not the only ones making the decisions.
MM,Ummm, I'm sure having trouble reading your irony meter. Would you mind elaborating?
Ann said... I haven't decided who I'll vote for yet.dave said... Bullshit. Brownshirt is as brownshirt does.You keep pretending you're a "moderate," though. We all get a big fucking laugh out of it.People like dave prefer you to vote for Doyle. Do you really want to give them what they want? The Democrats consider people like him their base. Until they clean up their base, I ask you to vote for the Republican whenever you are finding it a close call.And an aside to Dave, your abrasiveness and propensity for attempting to bully are traits that you share with the brownshirts. That fits, because the Nazis were leftist in nature, not rightist, as Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihin in this book demonstrated, as did David Ramsay Steele in this article.
Kirk, maybe I misinterpreted your remark, but I read it like I'm supposed to be scared the criminals have guns. If you're complaining that Doyle is using scare tactics...
Ann: Based solely on the issues that you have mentioned on your blog that appeared to be important to you personally, I'm somewhat surprised that you have not decided, and wonder why voting for Green is a viable option.
I haven't decided because I don't particularly like either candidate and disagree with much of what both stand for. I find having to choose very unpleasant and since the race doesn't seem to be close, I feel my decision is not urgent.An issue that affects me personally is property taxes. I pay over $11,000 a year. And the income tax is also high. These high taxes also have a huge impact on my federal taxes because of the Alternative Minimum Tax. I don't normally vote based on my personal financial interests, but I think the taxes here are terrible. And I think economic policy is the most important part of the governor's role. I resent the use of the "social" issues like abortion and, especially, stem cell research. I will not let my vote be captured by that. But I disagree with Green on all sorts of things.I also think that Green was cheated by the way the campaign finance decision was made against him. To the extent that Doyle bears some responsibility for that, I hold it against Doyle.Anyway, it's probably clear that I'm going to have to vote for Doyle.
$11,000 a year?!? Holy cripes! From the pictures you've shared, you have a very nice home but you don't live in a mansion. One grand a month just in taxes?We lived in Wisconsin in a home slightly less valuable than the one we now have in Missouri. I think our taxes were around $4,800 10 years ago(compared to about $3,000 here), and they were that low only because we lived in the county and not the city.I don't miss that about Wisconsin.You're primarily concerned about economics and taxes you're voting for Doyle?
Thanks for the detailed reply. Not being particularly well-versed in Wisconsin tax law or politics, your answer was illuminating. It also explains a couple of the positions mentioned in the comparison that seemed to me: such as deductibility of health insurance, a "given" in most states.I agree that economic policy is probably the most important part of a governor's job. It sounds like Wisconsin is one of those states where current market value continues to be used for property tax assessment. Once values rise far and fast enough that large numbers of retired folks are forced to sell their houses because they can't afford their taxes, this will undoubtedly change (and become a very important driver of GOP victories).I had noticed your disgust with Doyle's protests about using "social" issues in a campaign while using "social" issues in his campaign.I guess, for me, the question in my mind at this point would be: Will the GOP lose control of the legislature after this election? If they will, will punitive caps be undone? What about the laundry list of the public employees unions? How much will that cost and does Doyle have the fortitude to say "No." And if not, where will the money come from?If you are a relatively high-tax state, it certainly does not make your recruiting job this weekend any easier.
MM,OK, sorry for being dense, I finally follow you.As far as what you're seeing irony in--sure, it's there, but do I need to point out that fear-mongering can go both ways? It certainly does in this case!It seems one of the constants of the anti-gun movement is the assertion that guns in the hands of licensed, trained, background-checked citizens are a danger, a claim that is invalidated by the experience of every single state that has liberalized concealed-carry laws.On the other hand, crime is a real if infrequent problem, so I have much more sympathy with those trying to sell "fear of criminals" than I do with those trying to sell fear of the upright citizens' brigade.Just to be thorough (as if anyone cared!) I personally find the morality argument a la Jeffrey Snyder (basically, who are you to use the power of the state to compel me to abandon the tools of self-defense?) to be much more compelling than simple fear of crime per se.
A minor point: It was mentioned by commenters that the Governor appoints Supreme Court Justices. Technically, this is true, but it is also true that they have to stand for public election following their appointment: "The Supreme Court is composed of seven justices, elected to 10-year terms in statewide, non-partisan April elections. Vacancies are filled by gubernatorial appointment and the appointee is required to stand for election to a full 10-year term the following spring. The Wisconsin Constitution limits justices to running one at a time."So if you don't like an appointee, organize a campaign to "throw the bum out".To the issue at hand... How about considering neither Green nor Doyle, but Nelson Eisman? He works in the Department of Administration and uses his experience to formulate some new ideas on how to change the way things are done in Wisconsin to achieve economic success. For one, he wants to eliminate the property tax. How's that for helping you with that $11,000 bill?Even though you're not weighing these as much, I think Eisman's on your side of the social issues. And he's not involved in any of the dirty campaigning and is very much for reform.Give him a chance! He's been using a good saying: If you're choosing the lesser of two evils, you're still choosing evil! How about option three?
Gregory Corso used to say when faced with two equally good choices that one should choose both.Increasingly I feel that one should take neither one. If neither option jumps out, then you don't really want either. That is, if you have a choice between two men or two women and you can't decide, then you don't really like either one.The right person, the right job, the right choice of phrase, the right candidate, they should leap out clearly in front of all comers. If you're confused, then something else is better than the choices presented: the tertium quid.Too often we are confused by our political choices. Should I go to the left and contribute to the chaos of the country, or should I go to the right and contribute to the stuffiness of the country? There should be on the ballot box a third choice: none of the above.The second-order implication of this would mean that in the run-off only third parties could run.But there are no third parties that are any saner than the two major parties. I tried to start a third party entitled Lutheran Surrealism. If a landslide becomes clear you can always write us in just to say hello to your punk rock roots.
Ann,Is there really a strong argument to vote FOR Doyle? Let me say this, in response to your observation about taxes. I'm not sure that your vote is vitiated merely because you might allow it to be motivated in part by - shock! Horror! - a sense of concern for one's own interests. And I would say that applies a fortiori when (a) that issue is being used only as a tiebreaker (as it seems that it would be) and (b) when, in point of fact, the desire to reduce the tax burden is far from purely avaricious since you are by no means the only person who would benefit from a reduction in taxes."I resent the use of the "social" issues like abortion and, especially, stem cell research. I will not let my vote be captured by that. But I disagree with Green on all sorts of things."Well, both sides "play to their base" on "the 'social' issues like abortion and ... stem cell research," and to the extent that the Democrats have tended to rely less vocally on criticizing the status quo, that is because the status quo leans towards their own view. I'm not saying "vote for Green." I'll express opinions, but I'm not going to tell anyone which way to vote. But I don't understand the argument that "it's probably clear that [you're] going to have to vote for Doyle."
Barry said..."A minor point: It was mentioned by commenters that the Governor appoints Supreme Court Justices. Technically, this is true, but it is also true that they have to stand for public election following their appointment ... So if you don't like an appointee, organize a campaign to 'throw the bum out'."I concede that you're right as far as you go, but I think that you're advancing a red herring. Certainly, if you don't like an individual appointee, you may indeed organize a campaign to throw the bum out. But what then? How are they replaced? The Governor appoints their replacement. So if one has a problem with the kind of judges that the Governor appoints, rather than with any particular individual judge, then your comment gets less mileage than you might think.
MM,As far as what you're seeing irony in--sure, it's there, but do I need to point out that fear-mongering can go both ways? It certainly does in this case!I don't know how the proposed concealed-carry law was written in Wisconsin, but in general we're talking about law-abiding, licensed citizens being able to carry guns in a responsible manner, with reasonable restrictions on where and how they do so. Trying to make people afraid of that is fear-mongering and, as you say, not justified by the experiences of states that have passed concealed-carry laws. And it's fear-mongering serving the agenda of stumping on rights, which is the worst kind. Stating that criminals already carry guns is just a fact. How rational it is to worry about violent criminals is related to what neighborhood you live in. Some people live and work in areas where you have to think about self-defense all the time, which might not be as much the case in a low-crime college town like Madison. I live in a suburb where violent crime (outside of domestic shit) is virtually non-existant. Am I gonna tell someone in a rough area of Cleveland who's been shot three times over the years and has drug dealers and strawberry girls crawling around his block that guns just make me feel too icky to let him carry one even if he'll jump through hoops to get licensed? People have a right to defend themselves. Just to be thorough (as if anyone cared!) I personally find the morality argument a la Jeffrey Snyder (basically, who are you to use the power of the state to compel me to abandon the tools of self-defense?) to be much more compelling than simple fear of crime per se.It's a civil rights issue. Doyle says he's against people's rights because some cops told him they like it that way. Does he always ask police before he'll support the rights of the people?
And it's fear-mongering serving the agenda of stumping on rights, which is the worst kind. Stomping on rights, I meant.
Loafing,I like all of what you say, with the exception of what sounds like complacency about living in a "safe" area. In fact, sometimes trouble comes looking for you, regardless of how upscale your area is. For example, the Tacoma Mall in its 40+year history never had anything like remotely like the multiple shooting that occurred there a year ago, and the recent self-defense shooting in Seattle happened in what the Seattle Times described as "the heart of Seattle's swanky downtown shopping district".Don't get cocky, kid! :-)
Wow, $11K a year is beaucoup high. Do you have a problem with unequal property assessments?While that's clearly an issue, consider the other extreme. We have very low property taxes in Louisiana, with a high homestead exemption ($75,000 is exempt). Our taxes are more on employment and purchases, and we pay for this with terrible schools, inadequate police and fire protection, bad roads, you name it. It's populist politics of the worst kind, with the property assessors, who are elected, portraying themselves as fighting for the little guy, but it's the little guy who get's screwed with endless taxes and fees on everything he does, buys, and earns.
Vote for Green.Why? A new broom sweeps clean. Doyle may or may not have established a corrupt administration. If he has then this is the simplest way to remedy the situation. Endless investigations are acid in the guts of any institution, and endless investigations is likely what we'll have if Doyle is re-elected.Green is earnest and bland, the state will no doubt survive four years of alternative governance.
Post a Comment