"We’re not just disappointed. This is the end of democracy…. Democracy died tonight…. This was it. If we didn’t win tonight, the end of the U.S.A. as we know it just happened."

It's election day today, at long last.

The post title is something a disappointed voter said, in tears, in 2012, after the failure of the effort to recall the duly elected Governor of Wisconsin.

You can see video of the desolate man here, embedded in a post of mine from 2017. I used it in one of my 6 reflections on the Washington Post's new motto "Democracy Dies in Darkness."

I'm steeling myself for the emotionalism of the day. There will be winners and losers, but how desperately mournful will the losers be?

If you actually believed in democracy, you wouldn't assert that if you don't win, democracy has died... especially if you'd spent the last 2 years denouncing those who won't acknowledge the legitimacy of their own defeat.

"Madison police union approves vote of no confidence in Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway."

The Wisconsin State Journal reports.

Saying they were "misled" before endorsing Satya Rhodes-Conway in last year's election, the Madison police union on Monday announced members had approved a vote of no confidence in the progressive first-term mayor just as the city is roiled by the fallout from the death of George Floyd and COVID-19, as well as a sharp uptick in gun violence....

Her "unhealthy portrayal" of police creates an "us versus them" dichotomy, the union said in a statement... "We would never ask the mayor to ignore our inadequacies," the union says. "In fact, we call for a leader who is committed to rolling up her sleeves, diving in and working with us on systematic improvements rather than separating herself from us and further dividing our community."...

There is also an effort underway — led by a former Republican candidate — to recall [the mayor]...

"Organizers of an effort to recall Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes Conway began today with the filing of required paperwork with the city clerk."

David Blaska reports, linking to the petition that's now on a 60-day deadline to get 36,203 signatures.

Here's an article in the Wisconsin State Journal about the recall effort:

[Recall petitioner Jon] Rygiewicz said Rhodes-Conway did not keep the city safe when groups of demonstrators tore down statues, beat up state Sen. Tim Carpenter, D-Milwaukee, and another man, and threw a Molotov cocktail into the City-County Building on June 23.

“The sheriff said it was unsafe because of rioting and looting and senators getting beat up and things getting trashed and (the City-County Building) getting firebombs thrown in them,” Rygiewicz said. “And nothing was done to stop that at that time.”

Journalism in the passive voice: "The statue Forward, on the Capitol grounds facing State Street, is covered in paint."

A caption under a disturbing photograph, in "Photos: Madison anti-police protests enter Day 3 with promise of more to come" (Wisconsin State Journal).

Another caption: "Several windows on State Street were freshly shattered early Tuesday morning."

It's as if windows shatter on their own and statues ooze paint from within.

The "Forward" statue is the most important public sculpture in Madison, I believe. It embodies the state's motto and it is situated at the top of State Street in front of the Capitol. At the height of the anti-Scott-Walker protests in 2011, when there were huge crowds of protesters in and around the Capitol, the statue was appropriated for the protesters' expression, but only this much:



That was when the inside of the Capitol was in this condition:



I've also seen a pussy hat on Forward (during the Women's March in 2017) and the Guy Fawkes mask (during the Walker recall election in 2012):



But what I'm seeing in the photograph is not a respectful appropriation of the statue as a speech prop. It's really hostile defacement and damage.

"Trump impeachment drive has similarities to Wisconsin recall."

ABC News is just noticing.

I don't need a refresher on the Wisconsin uprising against Scott Walker, but the key similarities lie in the future. After Walker-haters stormed their way to a recall election, they not only lost the recall, they lost the next regular election.

The ABC article tells us:

Walker ultimately won the recall election in June 2012, becoming a conservative hero on his way to a short-lived run for president in 2015. In a testament to Wisconsin’s political division, just five months after Walker won the recall vote, Obama cruised to victory in Wisconsin on his way to reelection....

Yeah, but Walker won his next election. That fact is tucked away in the article, here:

If you're going to plaster your car with bumper stickers, you'd better drive properly, or it's like you're arguing for the other side.

This car veered across a solid white line and cut sharply in front of us as the street diverged and he suddenly needed to be in our lane:



Note the taped over left tail-light, indicating he'd cut somebody else off even more sharply on some prior occasion. He proceeded to drive for blocks straddling the white line like that. When he finally committed to a lane, I took 2 pictures of him as we passed on the left. I won't put those pictures up. He was a very old guy, and I don't think he even noticed me photographing him, so the intended message that we didn't appreciate his driving never reached him.

The stickers include "Recall Walker," the blue fist shaped like the map of Wisconsin (oft seen during the anti-Walker protests), and various pro-union things.

"By any metric, Trump is in trouble."

Writes Megan McArdle in "Poll by sinking poll, Trump inches toward impeachment" (WaPo). The headline suggests that low poll numbers is a high crime or misdemeanor.

If polls determined who gets to be President, Hillary Clinton would be President. She had the clear lead in the polls. But under the Constitution, the presidency goes to the person who wins in the Electoral College, and there isn't another go-'round for that until 2020. So the only alternative is impeachment, which requires the House to vote based on "high crimes and misdemeanors," not whatever's in the current polls, which we know were egregiously wrong in 2016.

But what made me want to blog this is the first line of the column, "By any metric, Trump is in trouble," which is followed by:

A poll out from The Post and ABC on Friday shows that 60 percent of voters disapprove of the job he’s doing as president, a new low. But that’s just one poll; the polling average at statistician Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight shows Trump with a mere 53.4 percent disapproval rating, which is better than its 56.8 percent peak last December.

So there's an obvious "metric" — the famous Nate Silver metric — by which Trump is doing better than last December, but "By any metric, Trump is in trouble"?! Who is McArdle writing for these days? [THAT IS: Who is her intended audience? I know who her employer is.]

But a presidency is not in good shape when the best spin on the new poll is “It’s an outlier! Only 53 percent of the country thinks the president is terrible.” The poll is especially ugly for Republicans with midterms looming in two months.

No. 53 percent didn't say "the president is terrible." They said "disapprove" when asked whether they approve of disapprove. And they might disapprove of other options too, such as impeachment or even (if it could be magically possible) Hillary for President. Has McArdle compared the congressional approval poll average? I'm seeing 19.0 approve and 71.2 disapprove. I suspect that a lot of us don't like much of anything, but we've got to have something.

McArdle continues:

FiveThirtyEight’s forecast for the midterms puts the likelihood of Democrats taking the House at more than 70 percent. Their chances of taking the Senate are lower, but Republicans are hardly a lock despite a very favorable map for them. And if Democrats manage to eke out a majority in both houses of Congress, here is the poll’s really bad news for Trump: Half the country wants him impeached....

Voting for a Democrat instead of a Republican doesn't mean you want the drama of impeachment. But maybe the 2018 election can take the clear form that it's a referendum on impeachment. Would that help the Democrats? To me, it makes them seem too chaotic (which is the main thing that disturbs me about Trump).

McArdle recognizes that the Senate needs a supermajority vote to remove Trump, but her by-any-metric logic includes the way "these things have a way of taking on unexpected momentum." I think it's the opposite. No President has been removed by impeachment. This is a thing that has a way of losing momentum.

After the midterms, we'll be heading into the next presidential election. Is the first-year of run-up to that election going to be consumed with impeachment weirdness or can we have the straight-up political fight in which specific anti-Trump candidates stand up and say why they would do a better, more upright job of being President?

I saw how Democrats in Wisconsin squandered their anti-Walker fervor using the recall method in the middle of Scott Walker's first time, lost that, and then stumbled into the next regular election, and lost that too. It was partly the weirdness of the unusual procedure and partly the failure to develop a strong candidate to defeat Walker. Their anti-Walker fervor did not do what they felt in their hearts it just had to do. I scoff at that stupid drama. Let the Democrats put up a great candidate, like they didn't do in 2016.

More McArdle:

It’s all too easy to imagine a similar scenario for Democrats intent on impeaching Trump as they come up short looking for Republicans to help them make it across the finish line. But it’s not entirely impossible to picture a few Republicans going along....

We've gone from "by any metric" to "it's not entirely impossible." Come on! Were we not supposed to read this far into the column? WaPo is all headlines and first lines these days. Get your hit, and maybe you can face another day with Trump as President.

But even if Republicans hold the party line, what Trump faces in this scenario is bad enough: a public trial that he can’t avoid by firing the investigators, nor distract from with more Twitter blasts. One senses that public humiliation, especially at the hands of an establishment that has always looked down on him, is the thing that Trump fears most. Though far from certain, that humiliation is growing more likely.

Trump gets his energy from the deplorables — the humble people. The elite's going big on humiliating him will release tremendous energy, energy that Trump knows how to use. But government isn't entertainment, so I'd rather not see this grand drama play out. But these people who are hankering for it... I don't think they're picturing the fight and its repercussions.

To say "By any metric, Trump is in trouble" is to flaunt your lack of imagination.

What can we say about the new Washington Post catchphrase: "Democracy Dies in Darkness"?

It looks like this on the homepage:



Without reading any of the articles on the subject, I'll just jot down all the thoughts I can come up with:

1. Somebody loves alliteration!

2. Why not forefront death? There's usually lots of death on the front page of the newspaper? "If it bleeds, it leads," they say. So why wait until something bleeds? Why not scream DEATH!!! right at your bloodlusting readers?

3. It makes me think of the emotionalism of the Scott Walker recall election of 2012 — "Democracy died tonight!"



4. They're giving the premise for an unstated assertion. The assertion is: We are the light! The idea is that you need this newspaper because we are what keeps democracy alive.

5. So then why not put it positively? If only I could have listened into the brainstorming session:

We are the light that shines on democracy!

No, we don't just show democracy by illuminating it, we actually cause its continued existence. If you shine a flashlight on a brick wall at night, it lets you see a wall that is always there. It doesn't build the wall. It doesn't keep the wall from crumbling.

We need it to be more like a plant in the sunlight, feeding on the light, and dying in darkness.

We are the blazing sun keeping the plants of democracy growing...

Like kudzu strangling the gnarled trunk of Trump!

That monster. That Satan.

The Prince of Darkness.

The Prince of Darkness is killing democracy.

Death darkness democracy.

Democracy Dies in Darkness!

6. Maybe they knew they could get everybody to write about it and then they would take it out later. 

On not accepting the results of the election: Let's hear from Russ Feingold: "This game's not over until we win."

That's Russ — who's running for the Senate again here in Wisconsin — haranguing the protesters back in 2011, when the results of the last election were not being accepted. There had been a fair election. No one was saying there had been fraud or improper counting, but the protesters rejected the legitimacy of the outcome, began working on getting a recall election, and — for many weeks — chanted "This is what democracy looks like." That is: Democracy was — instead of accepting the results of the election — resisting conspicuously and vocally.

Now, let's look at what Donald Trump said at last night's debate:

The moderator, Chris Wallace, asked him if he would make a "commitment" that he will "absolutely accept the result of the election."

(I think I would have said: "It depends on what the meaning of 'result' is. If by 'result,' you mean that we have had a chance to look at exactly what happened in all of the states and we can see that the margin of victory is beyond all remaining allegations of fraud, then I will absolutely accept the result. But if you mean that in a close election, where there is suspicion of fraud or mishandling of the ballots, and the other side is calling that the 'result,' and that I should accept that 'result,' no I will not.")

Here's what Trump said:

I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at anything now, I'll look at it at the time. What I've seen, what I’ve seen, is so bad. First of all, the media is so dishonest and so corrupt and the pile on is so amazing. "The New York Times" actually wrote an article about it, but they don't even care. It is so dishonest, and they have poisoned the minds of the voters....

Notice that Trump isn't talking about fraud and miscounting of ballots there. He's complaining that the voters made the wrong decision. We can't be rejecting the outcome of an election on the ground that the voters thought about it the wrong way! Trump has many good complaints about the media, but if distorted media invalidate elections, we can't have a democracy anymore. There will always be dishonesty and efforts to influence — poisoning — and if we can't get on with it anyway, the whole project of democracy is a bust.

Trump does go on to make a second point, the decent point, that there may be fraud:

If you look at your voter rolls, you will see millions of people that are registered to vote. Millions. This isn't coming from me. This is coming from Pew report and other places. Millions of people that are registered to vote that shouldn't be registered to vote.

This is the good point, and he needed to extend it and explain why irregularities in voting require him to withhold his acceptance of the purported results until we can see what happened. But he does not say that. He just drops the idea that there are a lot of names on the voting rolls that shouldn't be there, and stumbles forward trying to get to a different subject:

So let me just give you one other thing. I talk about the corrupt media. I talk about the millions of people. I'll tell you one other thing. She shouldn't be allowed to run. It’s -- She's guilty of a very, very serious crime. She should not be allowed to run, and just in that respect I say it's rigged because she should never --

Wallace: But, but --

Trump: Chris. She should never have been allowed to run for the presidency based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things.

Wallace stops him:

Wallace: But, sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact, one of the prides of this country is the peaceful transition of power and no matter how hard fought a campaign is that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying you're necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you're not prepared now to commit to that principle?

This is a grand statement by Wallace, and Trump should have shown respect for "that principle," while reminding us of the additional principle that the votes must be legitimate and properly counted and that he will not abandon one principle in preference to the other. Both are treasured, and he will protect both. Well... unless — expecting to lose — he really is laying the groundwork for a post-election political/media career premised on anger and grievance. The first woman President will be the one who gets no honeymoon.

What Trump did say was cutesy and snide:

What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense, okay?

And that's where Hillary Clinton jumped in. She called it "horrifying." She said Trump had a habit of saying things are "rigged" whenever they are not going his way. She listed a bunch of things — such as Trump's saying the federal judge in the Trump University case couldn't be fair — and she ends with the silliest thing — the Emmys were rigged against his TV show.

Trump riffs on that last thing: "Should have gotten it." That's cute and gets a laugh, but he needs to be serious. This is important, and he's going for the opening to be funny. Clinton takes advantage:

Clinton: This is a mind-set. This is how Donald thinks, and it's funny, but it's also really troubling. That is not the way our democracy works. We've been around for 240 years. We've had free and fair elections. We've accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them, and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. You know, President Obama said the other day when you're whining before the game is even finished....

And that's where Chris Wallace calls an end to this segment of the debate. Hillary gets in a few more words. Trump is "denigrating" and "talking down our democracy" and "I, for one, am appalled...."

And Trump has a few more words but they are off topic (about the email controversy), and Wallace steps back in, more firmly, and shuts the door on what will be the biggest story coming out of the debate:

There they go again. The big bad media, poisoning our mind.

Hillary Clinton is devising "attack lines" to "get under Trump's skin," while Donald Trump is studying video of HC debating to find her "vulnerabilities."

Is the debate prep the same or different? The NYT — in "Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too" — stresses the difference, but there's a sameness in relying on the weakness of the other person and hoping to reveal and amplify what's wrong with the opponent. The difference is that Hillary seems to be getting scripted zingers ready while Trump is learning how to read her. That is, Trump is going deeper as he preps and will be more spontaneous during the event.

But that's not how the NYT writers — Patrick Healy, Amy Chozick, and Maggie Haberman — put it. To them, Hillary is deep and Trump is shallow:

"I can't help noticing that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker picks beautiful young women to be the spokespeople for his administration and his campaigns."

"By my count there's Laurel Patrick, Alleigh Marré, Jocelyn Webster and Ciara Matthews. Matthews, you recall, is the one who made headlines for being a former Hooters waitress. It reminds me of Fox News, which uses super-sexy women as on-air talent rather than a normal range of women who just happen to be good journalists. As with Fox, it's hard to believe that the most talented females available to fill Walker's frontline jobs also look like models.... What does it say to the young girls of Wisconsin who hope to do important work when they grow up, regardless of their looks? In my opinion Walker's approach sets women back 50 years, to the pre-feminist Mad Men era."

A letter to the "Tell All" column in the Madison, Wisconsin alternative newspaper Isthmus.

Here's an article in the Cap Times from 2012 about Matthews: "Walker's Hooters connection and other fun facts about campaign spokeswoman Ciara Matthews."

“Are you guys doing a story on this, really?” she asked Friday when asked to confirm the rumor.

But to the direct question: Were you a Hooters girl? She said, “I was.”

Matthews said she waited tables for the popular restaurant chain -- which features tasty chicken wings and waitresses in short shorts and low-cut tops –- while attending college at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.

“So you guys want to write a story that I waited tables in college,” she said. “I’m confused as to why that’s a story.”

Imagine taking a shot at a young woman for waitressing?

ADDED: Back in 2009, somebody wrote to Isthmus "Tell All" with this thing about me:

Non-Wisconsinites, I need to explain something about Scott Walker to you that you are missing.

Those of you who think that he's a neophyte, that he hasn't yet learned how to step up to answering a question. You don't get it. You are a neophyte. You haven't yet learned how to step up to understanding Scott Walker.

I'm talking to people like WaPo's Dana Milbank, who wrote a column called "Scott Walker’s cowardice should disqualify him," based on Scott Walker's response to Rudy Giulian'is "I do not believe that the president loves America."

And Walker, just a few seats away, said... nothing. Asked the next morning on CNBC about Giuliani’s words, the Republican presidential aspirant was spineless: "The mayor can speak for himself. I’m not going to comment on what the president thinks or not. He can speak for himself as well. I’ll tell you, I love America, and I think there are plenty of people — Democrat, Republican, independent, everyone in between — who love this country."

But did he agree with Giuliani? "I’m in New York," Walker demurred. "I’m used to people saying things that are aggressive out there."

It's interesting that Walker was right there when Giuliani said that, yet he didn't rise to the bait, but it's exactly what I'm used to seeing in the doggedly on-message Walker. He's rock-solidly used to this sort of situation. I think back to the debates he had with Tom Barrett, the Milwaukee mayor who was his opponent in the 2012 recall election.

In the first debate, Barrett, standing right next to Walker, did all he could to turn up the heat, saying Walker "tore this state apart" and started "a political civil war." Walker never quarreled over these inflammatory characterizations. He'd go straight to his message: This is "about our reforms, which are working."

In the second debate, the 2 men were sitting next to each other at a table, and the candidates were encouraged to talk to each other. I said:

This is a great format with the men sitting side by side. Barrett — a larger man — leans toward the governor and speaks with urgency and stress. Walker seems more relaxed. He's earnest, gesturing and explaining. Walker's theme is: the taxpayers.

As in the first debates, Barrett kept calling Governor Walker "Scott," and Walker steadfastly called Mayor Barrett "the mayor." Barrett kept up with the inflammatory tone, at one point accusing Walker of "ripping my face off." As one of my commenters said:

What struck me most was the imperious yet at the same time perplexed look Barrett directed at Walker almost constantly. A combination of ridiculous pomposity and pathetic passivity. Amazing he could pull off such a combo. A talent of sorts, I guess -- for doing himself in. Walker looked relaxed and human and never once reciprocated with any form of rudeness such as he was getting.

Go to 31:33 to 32:00 in the video to see what "ridiculous pomposity and pathetic passivity" looks like.

After all of that, do you really think Walker would feel compelled to weigh in on what the former mayor of New York City spouts off about Obama? Absolutely not. Giuliani was deploying some colorful New-York-City-style rhetoric and purporting to know the emotional contents of the President's heart. There's nothing worth responding to, and the no response is the Wisconsin man's response to nothing. He was "in New York" and "used to people saying things that are aggressive out there."

Implicit in that is: That's not Wisconsin style. Get used to it, coasties.

ADDED: I'M WALKER HERE!

Scott Walker opens up a big lead against Mary Burke in the new Marquette University poll.

Suddenly — after tying in the last poll — it's 50% Walker, 43% Burke.

In the new poll, Walker enjoys a significant lead among independents, who have bounced around more than partisan voters in this race. Among likely voters, Walker leads among independents 52% to 37%.

One other shift in the new poll: Burke's personal ratings have worsened, while Walker's haven't changed much.

Among registered voters, 38% view Burke favorably while 45% view her unfavorably. Among likely voters, 39% view her favorably while 49% view her unfavorably.

"It's the first time we've seen her that far upside down or under water on favorability ratings," said poll director Charles Franklin.

What has changed? Well, there were 2 debates. Burke seemed able to stand with equal weight next to Walker. She tended to attack him and call him not good enough, perhaps without explaining what she could do better, and he tended to speak optimistically about accomplishments. Maybe that made a difference. The other thing that changed is that Burke has identified herself strongly with the Obama administration with 2 big appearances alongside Michelle Obama.

It's post-poll, but worth mentioning here that President Obama himself appeared with her yesterday [CORRECTION: I originally thought the appearance was today.]

The event was at North Division High School, in a ward where Obama outpolled Republican Mitt Romney 843 to 5 in the 2012 presidential election, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The somewhat risky bet that Burke is making is that Obama, polarizing as he is, will help turn out Wisconsin’s urban Democratic base for her next Tuesday....

Burke is one of the very few candidates to welcome Obama, whose unpopularity in the polls has made him somewhat of a pariah amongst vulnerable Democrats in tight races. But Wisconsin’s labor-heavy, populist base hasn’t always loved Burke, a millionaire former executive at her family’s company, Trek Bicycle. Thus the gamble with Obama, whose presence risks putting off independent and suburban voters....

“I think it reflects the fact that she’s the candidate of Washington. We’re not bringing Washington surrogates in,” Walker told reporters after an event Tuesday in Wausau.

And I'm a little skeptical of October surprises — why are we getting this one week before the election? — but I feel compelled to acknowledge this new item in Wisconsin Reporter by M.D. Kittle, "Trek sources: Mary Burke’s family fired her for incompetence."

The [European sales staff] threatened to quit if Burke was not removed from her position as director of European Operations, according to Gary Ellerman, who served as Trek’s human resources director for 12 years. His account was confirmed by three other former employees....

A former employee with the company told Wisconsin Reporter that John Burke, Mary’s brother and current Trek president, had to let his sister go. The former employee, who asked not to be identified for fear of reprisal from the Burke family, said Mary Burke was made to return to Wisconsin and apologize to a group of about 35 Trek executives for her treatment of employees and for the plummeting European bottom line.

Managers in Europe used to call Burke “pit bull on crack” or “Attila the Hun,” one source said.

You know, she could spin that in her favor. Some of us might like a "pit bull on crack" or "Attila the Hun" standing up to the entrenched interest groups here in Wisconsin.

“There is a dark side to Mary that the people at Trek have seen … She can explode on people. She can be the most cruel person you ever met,” said Ellerman, who started a consulting business after he was “asked to leave” Trek in 2004 over a difference in hiring philosophy.

Come on! "She can be the most cruel person you ever met"... that could be a great political slogan.

Anyway, read it yourself and decide what to make of it. I tend to think Walker doesn't need or even want this kind of help. He's avoided attacking Mary, perhaps because he doesn't want to be thought of as the cruelest person, even though many Wisconsinites have wanted to portray him that way. Here's a picture I took during the protests of 2011:



ADDED: Finally, here's the link to the Marquette page. Additional information of interest:

"If it weren't Wisconsin 2014, I would think that site was a parody trying to make the right wing look bad."

"However, the unfortunate truth is that Wisconsin Republicans and their supporters really are that lame."

"Prosecutors accuse Gov. Scott Walker of personally overseeing a sweeping 'criminal scheme' to illegally coordinate fundraising and campaign activity among conservative groups..."

"... in a broad effort to help him — as well as Republican senators — fend off recalls targeting them in 2011 and 2012, court documents unsealed Thursday show."

In the documents, which were unsealed by [Seventh U.S. Circuit Court Judge Frank H. Easterbrook] court judge Thursday morning, prosecutors described what they called a "criminal scheme" to circumvent state campaign finance and election laws....

Lawyers for Wisconsin Club for Growth respond:

"These documents show how the John Doe prosecutors adopted a blatantly unconstitutional interpretation of Wisconsin law that they used to launch a secret criminal investigation targeting conservatives throughout Wisconsin. That legal theory has now been rejected by two courts," said Andrew Grossman of Baker Hostetler, the law firm representing Club for Growth. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and this is a story that needs to be told to prevent more abuses and to hold the John Doe prosecutors accountable for violating the rights of Wisconsinites."

IN THE COMMENTS: rcommal said:

Note the inconsistent use of tense in this piece. It's the "tell" that its goal is not to illuminate but to mislead. Reportage, my ass.

ADDED: The NYT says:

Legal filings by the prosecutors provided a rare view of the inner workings of a far-flung network of conservative nonprofit groups that have come to play a decisive role in national and state elections, moving hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns by avoiding traditional political action committees that face tougher disclosure requirements.

Some of the groups, in Wisconsin and elsewhere, appear to serve as little more than conduits for funneling money from donors around the country to an array of allied organizations with ties to specific constituencies, such as gun owners or abortion opponents. Prosecutors allege that the groups in Wisconsin coordinated closely with allies of Mr. Walker both in the state and in Washington, with Mr. Walker’s campaign consultants simultaneously advising him on political strategy and television advertising while also raising money and directing the activities of an array of outside groups.

Rush Limbaugh takes on TNR's "Unelectable Whiteness of Scott Walker" and (in the process) says my name.

I was already listening to that section of the podcast of today's show when Meade — prompted by this rhhardin comment ("Althouse got a mention and quote on Rush at 14:15 eastern" — let me know Rush said my name today. So I just missed the weird experience of listening to a show and suddenly hearing my name. Instead I had the somewhat more unsettling experience of listening waiting for my name to come up, and I think my immediate response was something like "uh oh." Because much as I like what I write to get lifted up by one form of media or another, whenever something is grabbed and used, it's used for someone else's purposes.

So Rush was talking about how Scott Walker is a great model for what the GOP needs to do to win, which is to stand on conservative principle and ignore the advice to move to the middle. And:

Federal district judge halts the John Doe investigation into conservative groups and the Scott Walker recall campaign.

Here's the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel News report:

In his 26-page decision [PDF], U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa in Milwaukee told prosecutors to immediately stop the long-running, five-county probe into possible illegal coordination between Walker's campaign, the Wisconsin Club for Growth and a host of others during the 2011 and 2012 recall elections.

"The (Wisconsin Club for Growth and its treasurer) have found a way to circumvent campaign finance laws, and that circumvention should not and cannot be condemned or restricted. Instead, it should be recognized as promoting political speech, an activity that is 'ingrained in our culture,'" Randa wrote, quoting from a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.

"Circumvent" is a funny word there. The assumption should be that we are free except to the extent that the government has validly restricted us. A bigger question is whether the campaign finance statutory law that we do have is valid, given free speech rights.

You think: "What a good-hearted, mellow person I am," I think: "Inside the Madison cocoon."

Should Wisconsin Democrats go left to challenge Scott Walker?

Here's Paul Fanlund in the Capital Times fretting that Scott Walker-haters will be too mean to Mary Burke, the wealthy moderate who might run as a Democrat in next year's gubernatorial election.

"New 'Crystal Ball' frontrunner for GOP nomination: Scott Walker?"

Allahpundit says "it’s the first time I’ve seen a major elections analyst name Walker as the man to beat."

I agree with the basic outline: There’ll be a centrist champion, a right-wing champion, and then a compromise candidate who can draw from both camps. Sabato thinks that’s Christie, Rand Paul, and Walker, respectively. I think it’s likelier to be Christie, Cruz, and Rubio, with Rand Paul an X factor fueled by libertarians, but oh well.

Walker is the compromise and somebody else is right wing? That sounds so weird here in Madison.

Sabato lists one of Walker’s potential key disadvantages as being too bland a la Tim Pawlenty. Really? The guy who broke the unions in Wisconsin and then humiliated big labor by winning his recall fight? He won’t have a blandness problem. 

Could you watch the video of Walker in the recall debate and rethink why he wins around here (and by here I mean Wisconsin, not Madison)? I'm not sure people around the country really get the Midwestern style. If you know Walker for standing up to the noisy protesters, you may picture him out there fighting, but in fact, he stayed calm and mostly out of sight and waited for the protests to die down, which they eventually did. The GOP had the votes in the legislature, so they simply took action.