October 21, 2006

Who should I vote for?

Even though I write about politics every day here, I have given very little thought to the question of who I'll vote for next month. With no party affiliation and not particularly liking anyone, I find it enough of a pain to develop preferences that I've seriously considered not voting.

There are two ballot issues -- same-sex marriage and the death penalty -- that are designed to get out the vote and that I really do have very distinct preferences about, and that will probably push me get me to go over to the church. So, with the election coming up awfully soon, it's time to figure out what to do about the actual politicians who seek my support.

I'm looking at three Democratic incumbents: Governor Jim Doyle, Senator Herb Kohl, and Representative Tammy Baldwin. The corresponding Republican challengers are: Mark Green, Robert Lorge, and Dave Magnum.

Who should I vote for?


Gerry said...

As a Republican, I hope you decide to pull the lever for as many of our candidates as you can. I am asking for your vote, in that regard.

Although, as I have said before, I suspect your vote will go the other way this time.

Ann Althouse said...

Well, you're just demonstrating how much easier it is to have a party affiliation. I have a residual affiliation to the Democratic party, and I can see how easy it was to get through elections by accepting whoever the party put up.

But you've got to admit the Republican party did an incredibly bad job of putting up attractive candidates to lure me over! They didn't even try to put up a viable candidate against Kohl (the richest man in the Senate).

Gerry said...

I was very tempted to just write for you to vote for Green and Magnum, on the basis of Kohl's race not really being competitive, so you can safely infer that I agree with you, to an extent.

I do believe we tried to get a good candidate to run against Kohl. We just could not convince Tommy Thompson to do it.

AllenS said...

Why not vote for the candidate with the least amount of wealth. That way the richer candidate will still have his/her money, and the least richest will have a good paying job. See, that was easy.

AllenS said...

By the way, this west central WI voter will vote straight Republican. Not that I even like them, I'm just sick of the constant bashing of Repiblicans that I see on TV every single night.

WV: nmgqlgfl
That was really hard to type

David said...

none of the above

George said...

"Who should I vote for?"

It is unclear.

I am pleased to be of assistance in this matter. Should you have any other questions, please turn your iMac over again, shake, and the answer will float to the top of your screen.

Magic iMac 8ball
Version 2.0.4 (419.3)
Copyright (c) 2005 Apple Computer Inc.,
All Rights Reserved

AllenS said...


elliot said...

The iMac comment was funny!

You're a smart lady, Ann. Ignore the garbage floating through all the campaign ads and vote on the issues.

My guess is that in terms of policies, your politics still align more closely with the Democrats.

Also, remember you can split your ticket.

For example, I'm much more likely to vote for a qualified Democrat for national office than I have been since I was in my twenties, but my sense that the Democratic party in Wisconsin refuses to confront crime in Milwaukee and is uncomfortably close to both gambling interests and WEAC make me almost certain to vote for a Republican for Governor and State Attorney General.

MadisonMan said...

I'll probably vote for Tammy and Lorge, the latter a protest vote against Kohl. Much as I'm lukewarm for Doyle, I just can't vote for Green. He tries to package himself as moderate. He fails.

None of the above is reserved for the AG race. What horrible choices!

Donald Douglas said...

I don't know enough about Wisconsin's candidates and issues to make any recommendations, but you sound more likely to vote in this post than was the case in our last exchange. Right on!

In any event, I enjoyed your excellent "No Exit" article in this morning's hard copy Wall Street Journal. You talk there as well about the Wisconsin's same-sex ballot measure. That's one issue that ought to get people to the polls, as you note in your post.

On judicial activism and abortion though, you say in the article that even if Roe were overturned "New political fights would spring up and produce a new set of cases that would plunge the courts into even more troublesome legal disputes. The sought after exit from 'the abortion umpiring business' [Scalia's phrase] would not take place. There is no exit." I know you're debating the future of judicial activism in the piece, but I wondered about your substantive position on Roe. Should we keep it? Did that case make good law? If not, should we worry about overturning it mainly because striking it down wouldn't resolve the issues? Couldn't the same be said about earlier cases subsequently overturned by the Court, like Plessy? Didn't some of the new political fights thereby engendered by that case work to further the progressive development of the law, and so striking down big landmarks like that might not be a bad thing? California's got an initiative to require parental notification for abortions on the ballot in November, so I guess the 1992 Casey decision didn't settle the matter of the right of minor to an abortion, and perhaps this is an example of the seeds for a "new political fight" to which you refer.

Your piece was not, unfortunately, up at OpinionJournal.com, in which case I might have hashed out some of these issues on my own page! Good job, in any case!


DNR Mom said...

Vote for Gov Doyle to work on the positions he advocates for embryonic stem cell research, women's right to choose privately, health care and drug costs.

Why? Because you're the consummate intellectual. Green's stances could irritate any thinking person, much less any intelligent one.

Slac said...

Why not Dave Redick? (http://www.redick2006.com/)

Regardless of your interests, the only way you can waste your vote is to vote.

Gerry said...

Excellent appeal to campus elitism, dnr mom. Well played.

I could be wrong about this, but I do not believe that chord resonates with the good professor. Still, it was nicely played, and right to stereotypes as well!

Richard Dolan said...

"Not particularly liking anyone" is not an excuse. They are all politicians. Of course you don't like them. But it's still your civic duty (there's an old fashioned idea) to participate, even if you decide not to vote for any of the candidates for a particular office.

Here's a news flash: Politics is all about choosing the best from the available alternatives. It's an exercise in comparatives, not absolutes. You get to decide what the matrix of values is that determines "best" here. One of the candidates for each office is going to win, and it's inconceivable that the choice is in equipoise on whatever set of values you think is most important now. And no one ever said that participatory democracy is free or easy (name one thing worth having that is) even for those of us who don't run for anything. To avoid that obligation by saying that it's "enough of a pain to develop preferences that I've seriously considered not voting" is to verge dangerously close to Frivolous Dingbat syndrome. So, engage with reality, suck it up, and go vote. Just like your father told you to do decades ago.

Knowing nothing about Wisconsin, I can't offer any advice about the candidates. As for general policy positions, at the national level and on the issues that matter (to me, anyway) the Republicans have some definite policy positions; the Dems (for now, at least) prefer not to articulate anything beyond the "we'll do better" kind of platitudes. What will make me vote for the R team this go-around is that I think the Rs are serious about the Islamofascist threat and are convinced that the US (and Israel and the West generally) must confront and defeat it. In contrast, the D team thinks that the whole idea of an "Islamofascist threat" is just scare tactics by the R team, and that the only real problem here is the R team. (Your devoted friend "doyle" who comments here frequently captures that attitude and mindset to a tee.) The stakes are high, the issues are serious, and there comes a point where dithering and waffling won't do. The only thing required of you is to take a stand; the only act required is to vote for whomever reflects your stand. So do it, already, and encourage others to as well.

The R team has its problems, but at least they recognize the source and nature of the main challenge. So I think it's an easy choice, and will remain so for however long the main threat continues to be the Islamofascist threat and the Dems persist in their view that wishing it away is a sensible strategy.

Gerry said...

Out of the candidates you listed, Ann, the one who I would advocate for the most is Dave Magnum. I believe that you would find most of his positions to be acceptable to your point of view.

One should not lose sight of the bigger picture, and do you really want a situation where John Conyers and Charlie Rangle, to give a few examples, are heading the House Judiciary and Weighs and Means committees, respectively?

Slac said...

Richard Dolan sounds like he wants you to listen to a patronizing echo in your head. :/

"Here's a news flash: Politics is all about choosing the best from the available alternatives."

So, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was politics, then. As the only available alternative, people had to do their civic duty and vote for him!

It makes no difference if there's one party, two or a thousand. If all the candidates are unacceptable, don't accept them. Isn't that our real civic duty?

Ann Althouse said...

Madison Man: Why are you protesting against Kohl?

Ann Althouse said...

Donald: I am in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade, because I think women do have a right to make their own decision whether to go through a pregnancy, and whatever attacks can be made on the reasoning of Roe as a matter of constitutional law, it is a longstanding precedent that there is not good enough reason to overrule.

Mike said...

When you figure it out, please tell me what to do. I haven't done any homework yet, either.

Before doing my homework, my inclinations are to vote against Tammy Baldwin, because she's ineffectual and because I disagree with her on what I think is her signature issue; socalized healthcare. I probably vote against Green, due to his stem cell research position (my votes are almost always against someone, which sucks, but that's the way it is). For Senator, what does it matter? I'll probably vote against Kohl just because it seems like he's bought the election, but I need to make sure Lorge isn't an axe murderer or something, first (like I said, I haven't done my homework). In fact, my homework may consist of reading the comments to this post. Thanks, Ann!

Gerry said...


Would it have helped if he said "politics in the United States, given the maturity and stability of our processes and institutions, is all about choosing the best from the available alternatives?"

We were not talking about Iraq. We were talking about the United States, or more specifically about Wisconsin. Perhaps he should have been more specific, but people in general are capable of understanding the appropriate context without spelling it out in complete detail. Your mileage may vary, however.

Ann Althouse said...

DNR Mom: I'm the "consummate intellectual"? How do you figure that? I'm practical about politicians, not intellectual. I may be a little intellectual in making fun of them, but in the end, voting, I'm not tooo intellectual.

PatCA said...

Follow de Toqueville's maxim and vote for the one who will do the least damage. He marveled at the American system of regular elections, because it was based on the knowledge that all humans are flawed and everyone, if left in office long enough, would screw things up.

Dorshorst said...

Don't not vote for anyone. That's wasting your vote.
Throw your vote away. Vote for no one.
The difference is whether you wish to express apathy or dissatisfaction.

Doug said...

Some express their disappointment with the not voting option, but I think it is a perfectly acceptable choice if one finds both candidates uninspiring. I am faced with this dilemma in the Michigan governor's race. I most always vote republican, but I don't care for repub choice. The incumbant democrat has done little to earn my vote as this state is in economic despair and one of her more publicized plans was slapping some sunglasses on her face in a lame attempt to make Michigan cities "cool".

The republican once ran Amway, which is distasteful right off the bat. He also doesn't support the ballot initiative to end affirmative action, which I think is cowardly on his behalf.

With your ballot initiatives, I would be of more help, but you already know how you are voting. On those issues, I find myself in the minority within the republican party, since I voted against a gay marriage ban when it was on the ballot last time, and I oppose the death penalty.

Slac said...


I definitely understand from context that no one here is endorsing Saddam Hussein, but Dolan's comment should be exposed as hyperbole.

It's very credible to say that only candidates from the available parties have a practical chance of winning. However, to argue some principle that one has a civic duty to vote for the available candidates is unacceptable.

Fenrisulven said...

What will make me vote for the R team this go-around is that I think the Rs are serious about the Islamofascist threat and are convinced that the US (and Israel and the West generally) must confront and defeat it. In contrast, the D team thinks that the whole idea of an "Islamofascist threat" is just scare tactics by the R team, and that the only real problem here is the R team. The stakes are high, the issues are serious, and there comes a point where dithering and waffling won't do.

I agree Ann. I was going to post some blather about voting with your latent Dem instincts on local issues, but those issues pale in comparison to whats at stake. If you're not strongly moved by the Dem platform, then vote for the party that intends to protect democratic values from Islamic fascism.

If we lose this war, issues like same-sex marriage and the death penalty will be moot. Sharia Law will trump everything. Maybe not in your lifetime - but all your efforts as a teacher and mentor will have been for naught. Everything from the Magna Carter to the Civil Rights Act will be wiped away.

Gerry said...

I don't see hyperbole in Dolan's comment, and I see hyperbole in your retort to his comment.

Choosing not to vote is always an option. However, when one tries to "send a message", one would do well to consider if the message will be heard, if it will be properly understood, and if it will provide a nudge towards the type of improvement the voter wants.

For decades, increasing numbers of Americans have chosen to "send a message" by choosing not to vote. Over those decades, satisfaction with government overall has declined. At some point, those Americans who are choosing to "send a message" might want to reconsider if their approach is contributing to the solution or contributing to the problem.

Johnny Nucleo said...

I have no idea who he is or what his politics are, but I think you should vote for Dave Magnum because Dave Magnum is a cool name.

chickenlittle said...

I'd probably vote for Doyle and Kohl (I grew up in Wisconsin and follow the scene from a distance).

In general, I belive people should vote for whomever best represents their interests tempered by what one perceives to be the interests the people of the state. At least that's what I'm teaching my kids.

I'd never vote for a candidate because they would advance some national agenda or (i.e., attain or retain some majority). That's a relatively recent phenomenon as far as I'm concerned, along with the concept of voting against someone or something. Just color me old-fashioned.

reader_iam said...

I'm biased in favor of voting--or, at least, showing up to vote--as a duty. I was raised that way, my husband was raised that way, and we're raising our son that way.

(But others make strong arguments otherwise, and it's not something I care enough about in terms of the behavior of other people to hassle anyone else about his or her position.)

However, clearly, there are times when none of the available choices are good enough. I don't think "a duty to vote" translates necessarily into "pick one of these guys."

My preference, in that case, is the write-in--of someone who, symbolically at least, represents what I think the particular positions needs at a particular time.

You could call this the "I may be pissing in the wind, but at least I'm taking a piss" approach.

As a more rare fall-back, I've voted for those offices or with regard to initiative for which I could, and left blanks where necessary.

You could call this the "I may not piss everywhere, but at least I marked some of the territory" to show I was in the area.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled Saturday cleaning chores (guess which one I'm currently engaged in)?

vh: stoolunz

DNR Mom said...

Ann: I must differ. You seem the perfect intellectual because you merge your reason, i.e.,"practical" side, with your A-1 mental facility. You even add the ability to communicate (blog) all of it. I'd say that's consummate.

quietnorth said...


Some questions you might ask yourself about the Governor's Race:

-Environment: Since the state legislature is going to continue to be Republican, which candidate is more likely to serve as a buffer against special interests that lobby to overule science based Decisions DNR decisions?

-Economy: Which candidate is more "Clintonian", generally holding the line on taxes (to the point of frustrating liberals) while not being dogmatic?

-Which candidate holds positions closer to yours on stem cell research, the death penalty, and the "defense of marriage" act?

OddD said...

Vote a straight third party ticket. Libertarian, Green--doesn't really matter, since they won't win.

That's a message.

The Tiger said...

Federally, I was rather sympathetic with what James Taranto wrote the other day:

It now seems within the realm of possibility that Democrats will take one or both houses of Congress in three weeks, even though they are campaigning on not much more than not being Republicans. But the Republicans are campaigning on not much more than not being Democrats. To our mind the Republicans have the better of this argument, but there is something to be said for punishing the party in power if its performance has been subpar.

But given that the Democrats are your incumbents... what do you think of their performance?

Rob said...

Ms. Althouse, one of the candidates is always worse than the other. Our party system leaves a lot to be desired, but a thoughtful person can surely make a decision as to which candidate is less incompetent. I am not kidding.

Revenant said...

Who should I vote for?

I'd say "vote against all the incumbents", personally -- that's what I'm doing (if I bother to vote). The only exception for me is the Governator, who I like.

Nobody in Congress has been doing a good job, in my opinion.

Rob said...

Re: Roe v. Wade. Please, Professor Althouse. Substitute slavery (or any other distasteful subject of your choice) for the "right to choose". You would not defend it as established precedent. Liking the outcome is not a good basis for supporting a judicial outcome. That reasoning leads to judges with royal powers.

As for me, I oppose abortion, but think that criminal legislation should only be used to ban behavior that a societal consensus supports banning. Making a behavior criminal on the basis of a bare minority leads to disrespect for the law. As an example, think of the crimes that most people would immediately report, e.g. bank robbery or murder, and compare that to the likelihood that some other crimes would get reported by law-abiding citizens, e.g. a friend's marijuana smoking. Prohibition is also a good example of the danger of criminalization on the basis of a bare majority of public opinion, or at least much less than a consensus. Legislation banning abortion, at least banning it broadly, will not work and will generally not be enforced.

MadisonMan said...

I'm very ambivalent about Kohl because he does so very little, that I can see, for Wisconsin as a Senator. Total Mediocrity. So I'd vote against him for that. It seems like he's in the Senate just 'cause he was able to buy his way in. I guess he's better than Bob Kasten was, but that's not a very high standard.

On the other hand, the Republican Party has done an awful job supplying a credible candidate against him. So maybe the Republicans shouldn't be rewarded with my vote either. I'll have to look in to Green or Libertarian for Senate. The Greens are too looney for me, generally, though.

I'm not sure there's a huge difference between Magnum and Tammy -- but Tammy is not a white male, and I like sending non-white males to Congress, if only to give different perspectives.

Ann Althouse said...

I can't help but notice the nearly total lack of substantive argument about the 6 candidates I asked about. I'm mostly just getting generic stuff about the importance of voting or the reasons for party-based voting. I know I have Wisconsin readers. Give me some substance!

And with respect to the Doyle/Green race, spare me the "stem cells" issue that's being overused to distinguish the two.

Ed Bush said...


I enjoyed your takedown of Glenn Greenwald's turgid prose. Then elsewhere in your blog, you write, "Who should I vote for?"

So I guess we're all sloppy writers now. Some are just sloppier than others.

Ed Bush

Abraham said...

I favored Doyle in the last election, but cannot in good conscience vote for him again. I have no strong feelings about the other races, but in the governor's race, it seems clear that Doyle:
- Will veto literally any bill and defy any judicial order that doesn't meet the approval of his major donors
- Will continue to refuse to do anything about election fraud
- Will continue to influence state executive agencies for political benefit and to reward campaign contributors

Clean government is very high on my priority list because without it, government itself is rendered ineffective. Doyle and the members of his administration have been involved in abuse after abuse.

Derve said...

You undecided voters are getting too accustomed to special election-time attention, doncha think? haha

Wisconsin people with no Madison ties or otherwise vested interests would probably prefer to talk Packers (1-4) than politics. I think they can beat Miami (1-5) today, what do you think?

Seriously though, don't most people "decide" over the course of time? If you have followed local news throughout the term or have listened to any issues debates, why not vote on that, or don't vote if you don't really support either candidate. (I wonder if you're unconsciously seeking ok to do just that? OK)

This holy GOTV* campaign in recent years is overrated. It legitimates the candidates and campaigns, without any quality improvements.

*get out the vote

Here's an issue that I wonder if you've considered:

Green is committed to pursuing constitutional spending controls, a popular "quick fix" that would limit local flexibility to finance their own needs. It would likely have detrimental consequences on public employees, forcing fire and police to sacrifice for poor financial planning by administrators. (Sorry-- no budget money to hire addt'l officers even if needed, our hands are tied.)

Doyle opposes constitutional limitations on the ability of local governments to tax and spend.

Next year, Wisconsin’s governor will likely face a $400 million gap to pay for state programs. Green’s proposals to maintain 2006 spending levels in 2007, implement a “real property tax freeze,” all the while entertaining $148 million in new spending, seem untenable.

Now either way you take that, from a taxpayer bottom line or from an economic planner maximizing his toolbox, there is a difference. Plug yourself into the statewide mix, and your own knowledge/experiences help choose if you like. Or sit it out if you have no opinion what's best for Wisconsin? The sex and guns are just facade issues, it's the money votes that count in this one, no matter who you end up supporting.

Ann Althouse said...

Ed Bush said... "I enjoyed your takedown of Glenn Greenwald's turgid prose. Then elsewhere in your blog, you write, "Who should I vote for?" So I guess we're all sloppy writers now. Some are just sloppier than others."

False. I did that on purpose, after thinking it through. If you disagree with my style choice, I think you are wrong. Try to picture how dorky that heading would look the way you think is right. I bet the Language Log guys would agree with me.

Maxine Weiss said...

Don't vote.

You'd still be making a statement.

Peace, Maxine

Greg D said...

Abraham hit my point: Doyle is a fan of vote fraud (which is what you're guaranteed to get when you have same day voter registration and no photo ID requirement).

So if you care about honest elections, vote for Green.

of course, given the vote fraud that Doyle enabled by vetoing the photo ID law, it just may not matter how you vote.

BJK said...

Can't help you with the Congressional race, other than to say that I can't think of someone who would do a worse job of representing my personal interests than Baldwin does. (That, and Dave Magnum may have the manliest name this side of Dick Armey.)

As to the Governor's race, I honestly don't see the appeal of Doyle to anyone other than the most partisan on the left. The regulatory climate in this State under Doyle - combined with the relatively high tax burden - is making it increasingly more difficult to attract new businesses (and the high-paying jobs that come with those businesses).

It's a major concern to me, for a number of reasons. As a recent graduate of the UW Law School, I know how difficult it is to find a good legal job in this state. (We can't all work for the State, you know. ;)) Second, as someone working in private practice here in Wisconsin, the outward migration of business means that there are fewer and fewer people who need lawyers (and can afford to pay us).

While driving near my Parents' house this weekend, I couldn't help but notice a "Dump Doyle" sign attached to a dump truck outside a local Menard's store. Menard's and Harley Davidson are both being forced to consider moving additional facilities outside of this state due mainly to the Doyle administration. I don't know what age your son is - or if he even wants to stay in Wisconsin; but wouldn't it be nice for that to at least remain an option?

Add in the questionable political action that happened to favor significant donors to Doyle's campaigns (Substandard casino treaties, rigged state contract bidding, etc.) along with the manipulation of the State Elections Board, and the man looks even worse.

It's hard to get into the booth and vote for a guy when you need to use both hands just to plug your nose.

froggyprager said...


froggyprager said...

I think the most important thing in the Gov. race is education funding and Doyle has made huge efforts to fight the Rep. efforts to slash support state funding for public education. If the Rep. in the legislature had their way, schools across the state would have been forced to make huge cuts, increase class sizes, layoff teachers, etc. Doyle has stood up for kids and families which helps the state's economy.

Sorry about the last post, that was a mistake.

Noumenon said...

You notice how impossible it is even for a collection of intelligent, politically aware people to come up with genuine facts or issues about the politicians running for office here? This is why voting "on the issues" is a complete waste of time. The real contest is not to win voters, it's to win Wisconsin's healthcare industry or its chamber of commerce or whatever power blocs can give you the money to deliver those voters with the stupid campaign commercials that the other 99% of people who aren't reading Althouse are listening to.

So... vote against the incumbent. You can't hope to influence the candidate's issue positions. All you can hope for is that whoever gets in doesn't get too entrenched. It's the competition, not your preferences, that keeps the parties focused. (I make an exception for Russ Feingold.)

mikeyes said...

The most interesting race in Wisconsin is Doyle/Green (forget the others in that race) because it is the only one that will effect how the state is run.

My vote is going for the incumbent simply because a coalition government rules from the center. I noticed that there are complaints that Wisconsin has high taxes and a "atmosphere" that is not conducive to business. I should point out that until Gov. Doyle took office, there was a decade plus Republican state government in Wisconsin. Since the governor can not write the laws, but only disaprove of them, it appears that the party responsible for this state of affairs is the party of business and low taxes.

If the reverse were true (Democrats controlled the legislature) then I would vote for Green just to make sure there is a balance and no entry for the ideolog left or right.

Anonymous said...

The one thing I know for certain in this election cycle is that our current governor has earned a vote to whoever opposes him from me.

Doyle refuses to enact a state bill for no smoking in restaurants and taverns. Living in the Fox Valley as I do, I know how diverse the local ordinances are, and how totally unfair they are to their respective communties. The state restaurant and tavern leagues ASKED for a statewide law, in an effort to level the playing field for every city. Doyle said that the local laws were more important. As much as I am against taking away freedoms, I'm more against unfair laws and ordinances... Which we have now.

I'm also for the concealed carry law that Doyle will never allow to pass without him vetoing it first. It doesn't put guns into the hands of criminals, because criminals will carry them no matter what. I'll get a permit, and I'll bet that I hardly ever actually carry my gun, and I'll feel better knowing that the criminals don't know if I'm carrying it or not.

We also can't forget the wonderful gaming compacts & state contract issues, either. Yep, Doyle lost my vote almost immediately.

I'm not in your area for representative, so I can't offer anything on them.

I'll vote for Lorge because I believe, much like others have already stated, Kohl hasn't done much to make me want him there. Perhaps a fresh face will do some good. The Dems rail the rich Rep. elites... So what would we call Kohl? Maybe if he concentrates more on the Bucks he'll finally bring a title to Milwaukee.

It's a shame that there aren't more libertarians running. Ed Thompson did so much better than anyone would have guessed last time in his run for governor. We might see more people voting if we had a more diverse field to choose from.

Ed Bush said...


Glad to hear you thought about it at least, and have the blessing of the Lang Log people. You also could have said "Who should get my vote?" or Who deserves my vote?" Neither are dorky, nor are they sloppy. That blog posts are written on the fly and mostly in the vernacular, your style choice is excused. Just bear in mind that when one (or should I say you?) criticize another blog post, one should be blameless in one's own writing.

All best BTW,

Ed Bush

Ann Althouse said...

Sorry, Ed. I'm actually right, and you're wrong. Deal with it.