Scott Walker hires a strategist who supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights and tweets with obscenities.

Jessie Opoien writes in The Capital Times:

In a party that's still ironing out its approach on social issues, [Liz] Mair is a rarity in her support of same-sex marriage and (with some exceptions) keeping abortion legal. Walker has taken some heat from social conservatives for hiring pro-choice staffers in the past.

As for the tweeting language:

After Walker's breakout Jan. 24 speech at the Iowa Freedom Summit, Mair tweeted (language edits courtesy of the Cap Times, not Mair): "Also, political reporters: As a general rule, Walker doesn't use notes, teleprompters, etc. He actually knows what the f--k he's saying."

Days later, on Jan. 30: "I f--king told you people Mitt Romney won't run for President again. #dontbelievethehype."...

"I f--king ran much of the oppo v Obama in 2008 and I've never voted for him, nor would I," she added....

Just a few days ago, Mair tweeted about presumed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's email scandal, "Hillary may have a higher IQ than Bill and objectively be smarter, but man when it comes to optics and basic politics, she's pretty dumb."

Asked to explain, she added this: "The f--king press conference today and her whole handling of this email stuff? Are you paying any attention?"

Opoien amusingly relates this to Walker's ultra-bland Twitter style. She gives a few examples like: "Church, hot ham & rolls, then off with Matt to get some new dress shoes" and "Got hot ham & rolls at Fattoni's deli after church. Now watching playoff game (Wish Packers were playing)."

When have you ever taken a political position that was hard for you to take?

It's my hypothesis that people take the positions that are comfortable to them. Living in Madison, Wisconsin, I often wonder about the depth of the political opinions that seem to be everywhere. To express an opposing view would take some effort and maybe even injure your personal life, so it's easiest to go along and get along, even to adopt the views of the people around you and to avoid exploring the possibility of thinking something else.

These beliefs, then, which seem so entrenched, are actually  shallow beliefs. The behavior patterns and commitment to getting along may be deeply rooted, but the ideas themselves are fairly insubstantial. The engagement with politics itself is insubstantial. Why pay so much attention to politics when deviating from your comfortable point of view would only expose you to pain?

Have you ever taken a political position that was hard for you to take, that exposed you to consequences? Or has all your political posturing displayed you in a position that your friends and neighbors find appealing?

You know what got me thinking about this topic? Basketball! Over there in the basketball thread this morning, garage mahal — a Madison person — said: "The time of year when Republicans don their Badger wear proudly.....of the university and city they would like to see destroyed. On Wisconsin!" And I took a shot at that: "Oh, you know damned well the lefties would abolish college sports if they could."

That is, I tried to turn it into a political debate. I'm a little weird in that I enjoy being a spectator to political competition and making a lot of random observations. But I think most people don't enjoy fighting about politics. Sports is a refuge from that. It's perfectly easy to be on the same side as everyone in your vicinity. And the competition is fun and real — out there to be seen, not brewing and festering in other people's head — you can watch it and gab about it and feel cozily comfortable without any nagging sense that you should be thinking more deeply or showing some courage and individuality.

Harvard lawprof Noah Feldman says Robert Durst's confession is not admissible.

What we have is video of Durst, alone and looking into a mirror and saying "What the hell did I do? Killed them all, of course." Feldman says he's "going deeply into the law" and "the circumstances of the statement" and encountering a "profound question about fantasy versus reality, the nature of a soliloquy, and the fascinating human strangeness unleashed by the era of reality television." All of that creates opportunities for presenting other evidence and making arguments about the meaning and weight of the words spoken by Durst, but it's not hearsay, because statements of a party offered by an opposing party are defined by the rules of evidence as not hearsay. [ADDED: Under some states' evidence rules, the statement of a party is hearsay but would fall within an exception to the rule against hearsay.] So what is Feldman's argument?

Bracketology 101 from the UW's resident bracketologist.

5 points of advice from Laura McLay, associate professor of industrial and systems engineering at the University of Wisconsin—Madison. Excerpt:

2. Instead of records, use sophisticated ranking tools. The seeding committee uses some of these ranking tools to select the seeds, so the seeds themselves reflect strength of schedule and implicitly rank teams. But some ranking methods are better than others. I like the LRMC (Logistic Regression/Markov Chain) method from some of my colleagues at Georgia Tech. The RPI (Rating Percentage Index) is a really bad ranking method.

Okay. Whatever that means! I can barely tolerate basketball, the indoor game with unusually large people — men in silky skorts — in a cramped, squeaky place. But: Wisconsin! So I looked at the NYT interactive tool, and I made it so Wisconsin plays Michigan State in final game. I used some sophisticated ranking tools to make that happen.

The answer to the question I had that was the reason why I was refraining from writing about that Tom Cotton Iran letter.

I couldn't understand the nature of the controversy without knowing whether the letter was actually sent to Iran, and I read a bunch of articles about the letter without seeing an answer. Finally, this National Review headline popped up: "The Cotton Letter Was Not Sent Anywhere, Especially Not to Iran."

It was just an essay in the familiar (if not trite) form of an "open letter." It's a rhetorical device that assumes a point of view, as if X is talking to Y. We can criticize the form and the content.

As content, it undercuts (or seems to undercut) what the President seems to be trying to do. I don't know what the President is really doing with respect to Iran, but I am observing what Iran is doing (being allowed/encouraged to do?) in Iraq. Members of Congress undercut the President sometimes, and having lived through the Vietnam era, I'm no going to say they should shut up entirely, but there is a line and we could argue about when it is crossed. I'd say Harry Reid went too far when he said "This war is lost."

But let's talk about the form. The form was great at getting attention, possibly too much attention. And speaking of attention, I don't think the letter is too well-written. The word "attention" is repeated in the first 2 sentences, and not in a good way. In an inattentive way. "It has come to our attention... we are writing to bring to your attention...." That comes across as pompous officialese, like something from a bill collector or from a lawyer who's trying to scare you into ceasing and desisting from something or other.

The letter proceeds to offer legal advice in an oversimplified and puzzling way. An executive agreement is only an executive agreement and will be regarded as an executive agreement. Yes, and? It's something the next president can "revoke... with a stroke of the pen." Style note: Get rid of any unintentional rhymes, especially when you're trying to sound all official and pompous.

The closing sentence features pretty words — "We hope this letter enriches your knowledge... and promotes mutual understanding and clarity...." Hope, knowledge, understanding, and clarity. Isn't this the standard move in letters from bill collectors and lawyers? End with a few nice words about going forward in a positive way?

I hope this blog post has enriched your knowledge and understanding as we move forward into the future.

"[I]f our educational system does not honestly and explicitly promote the central tenet of science—that nothing is sacred—then we encourage myth and prejudice to endure."

"We need to equip our children with tools to avoid the mistakes of the past while constructing a better, and more sustainable, world for themselves and future generations. We won’t do that by dodging inevitable and important questions about facts and faith. Instead of punting on those questions, we owe it to the next generation to plant the seeds of doubt."

Writes the scientist Lawrence M. Krauss in The New Yorker (in a piece that begins with a bit about Scott Walker's "I’m going to punt" answer on the question of evolution).

Maybe she said "Oh, Todd."

But it's in the "Meet the Press" transcript as "Oh God."

[Former press secretary to Hillary Clinton] KAREN FINNEY: It's crazy, you just can't imagine. The real problem, it's not the letter, it's whom it was addressed to. You don't send a letter to the Ayatollah...

CHUCK TODD: All right, I'm going to hit the pause button there, because we're going to have more fireworks, I have a feeling.

KAREN FINNEY: Oh God.

Finney is a former Hillary Clinton press secretary. It was only 2 weeks ago that the Democratic Party strategist Maria Cardona blurted out "Jesus!" on "Face the Nation." I'm keeping an eye on these female Democratic Party spokespersons. I think they are being misprepped for these Sunday shows. They're making a terrible impression... and not just for the fleeting expletives. Emotive emptiness like "It's crazy, you just can't imagine" is crazy. I just can't imagine why I am listening to her.

Finney was on the show to interact with Matt Bai, who was lively, articulate, and substantive:

CHUCK TODD: Matt Bai... [y]ou wrote something interesting this week.

MATT BAI: For once

See that's funny... silly, self-deprecating. It sets Todd up to be a little funny too:

CHUCK TODD: It was literally the only reason I brought you on. I'll set you up a little bit. You wrote, "It wasn't that [Hillary Clinton] couldn't answer the questions coming at her, it was that she didn't think she should have to. If I'm a Clinton advisor, that's a problem for me because this isn't 1992, when politics could be staged for the evening news. Transparency and authenticity are paramount in the social media culture and a lack of them is fatal, ask Mitt Romney."...

MATT BAI: ... Look, there are great advantages to being in the public arena as long as the Clintons have been. Organization, allies, experience, all of it. The disadvantage I think is that when you're there that long, you can miss changes in the political culture. You can fight the same battle you fought 20 or 30 years ago. But by the way, this happens to reporters too. I mean, we are not immune to missing changes... and you don't see what's in front of your face, somebody younger comes along and gets it. So I think she needs to change as a candidate and change her perspective in order to be successful, especially if you're running against a Jeb Bush, who makes openness obviously such a theme, a Rand Paul, who talks about civil liberties and secrecy in government. That's a sharp contrast with her approach.

Now, it's Finney's turn, and she's there to defend Hillary, but she's not flexible enough to pick up on any the things Bai just threw out (even though she'd obviously had the chance to read what Bai had written).

CHUCK TODD: Go over to Matt's point here a little bit. You know, did Secretary Clinton have "been there, done that" disease, where she assumed it was the '90s all over again and maybe was overly defensive?

KAREN FINNEY: You know, I don't think so. I thought she was trying to be sarcastic with her first answer. 

We had to pause the recording there. Sarcastic??!! Hillary was being sarcastic?!! Talk about unimaginable craziness! But what was Hillary's "first answer"? Finney doesn't remind us. I'm checking the transcript. I think it was her response to the question: "if you were a man today, would all this fuss being made be made?" Her answer was "Well, I will — I will leave that to others to answer." Is that what Finney was referring to? Did Finney really mean "sarcastic," implying that Hillary was mocking and contemptuous? Why throw that out first after the interesting things Bai said? And wouldn't sarcasm at the first question be "overly defensive," which would mean that her answer to Todd should have been "yes," not "You know, I don't think so"? Maybe Finney's first answer was intended to be sarcastic. I don't know.

Finney continues:

And I think also the fact that she went out there and did it, and also said, "Look, if I had it in hindsight, I would've done it differently." 

Also the fact what? This is Hillary's spokesperson?!  Not even speaking in sentences!

For all of those who criticized how slow she was, I think she also deserves credit that she went out there and did it.

We should give Hillary credit for showing up at all?! Also, what's with the "also"? What was the other thing she deserves credit for? Finney is a terrible spokesperson!

Because that's been the other criticism, right, that you wanted to see her come out. I don't think she in any way, shape, or form thought, and I think given your interview with Trey Gowdy it's quite obvious, this is not going away. This was not intended to end the conversation. 

So... the point is, I think, that Hillary did come out and speak and she wasn't trying to lay the controversy to rest? She's just beginning a conversation?!

After that less-than-worthless filler, Finney addresses what Matt Bai had written:

But I also thought, you know, Matt made an interesting point in his piece, also more broadly, about Hillary and this sort of thematic about Hillary in terms of the time at which she became first lady.

That sentence is a monument to stalling for time. Look at that phrase: "this sort of thematic about Hillary in terms of"! Is "thematic" even a noun? Yes, it means "a body of topics for study or discussion." Yeesh! Again with the endless conversation. I feel a sense of dread. This is what we'll get for 8 years with President Hillary — a sort of thematic about Hillary in terms of a conversation that never approaches the answer to the question we want answered (until it's gone on so long that it becomes possible to say we've already talked about it so long that you think you can look at us and say this has gone on too long and it's nothing but a partisan attack).

Finney continues:

And when that narrative about her and the Clintons were set...

The verb should be "was" and who are "her and the Clintons"? Finney is babbling.

... the country was not ready for someone like her. 

Like it's our fault?!

And so I think she's being held to a different standard. 

Oh, here it seems as if she's back to that first question about which Hillary was supposedly sarcastic — whether Hillary is being treated differently because she's a woman. I only understand that now because I looked up the press conference transcript. Anyone watching "Meet the Press" is thinking about whether they want to make the effort to extract the answer to the original question about whether Hillary can meet the transparency and authenticity demands of our social media culture.

Ironically, Finney's inane blabbing is answering the question. The answer is: no.

And I'm saying that from my little outpost in the social media culture.

"Like attorneys who comb through the tax code looking for loopholes to exploit for wealthy clients, clever state officials browsing through food-stamp rules..."

"... have figured out a way to game the program for their poorest citizens. The trick — called 'heat and eat' — is to give someone with no actual heating bill a token amount of home heating assistance — as little as $1 a year in some states, or a single dime a year in California. Sixteen states and Washington, D.C., use the gimmick to extract billions of dollars in extra federal food-stamp benefits that their citizens aren't really entitled to under the rules...."

Continue reading here.

"'What the hell did I do?' Mr. Durst whispers to himself in an unguarded moment caught on a microphone he wore during filming."

I'll put the rest after the fold in case you haven't watched the final episode of HBO's 6-part documentary "The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst."

"Virginia got jobbed when Duke and Wisconsin unjustly stole its No. 1 seed."

A USA Today headline that made me laugh.

"I must begin this email by admitting that I am not a loyal or dedicated reader. My husband, however, is..."

"... and as a result, I am often found listening to a quoted snippet, or even occasionally to an entire post, off of your blog. My husband enjoys your insights tremendously and I too have enjoyed those tidbits which I’ve heard vicariously." So begins an email I received recently:

My purpose in writing is to thank you for providing a long-awaited second opinion to my husband regarding his choice of pants.

"The Left’s Recusal Gambit/A prosecutor and his allies try to rig a judicial appeal in Wisconsin."

That's the title of a Wall Street Journal editorial that follows on a recent NYT editorial titled "Elusive Justice in Wisconsin."

From the WSJ:

If you’re a special prosecutor who keeps losing on the law, try rigging the judges. That’s the gambit in Wisconsin, where special prosecutor Francis Schmitz has filed a motion prodding judges to recuse themselves.

Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Benghazi investigating committee, concedes that there is reason for the continuing inquiry.

On "Face the Nation" this morning, at the very end of the interview, Bob Schieffer asked: "Well, are you satisfied that there's anything else to find out about Benghazi?"

Cummings said: "I don't know. We have been at this now, Bob, since May. And I still don't know the scope of what we're looking for. I think there have been eight investigations. They have been done extremely well. And they — I think they have resolved most of the questions."

He could have said — like many Democratic Party partisans — that the matter has been thoroughly investigated and it's nothing more than partisan politics now. But he said "I don't know." Twice. And then he said "they have resolved most of the questions." Most. Most means not all. So clearly there are questions left.

Tom Cotton has "no regrets" because "if the president and the secretary of state were intent on driving a hard bargain, they would be able to point to this letter and say, they're right."

"When past senators like Joe Biden or Jesse Helms communicated directly with foreign leaders, past presidents, like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, did just that. The fact that President Obama doesn't see this letter as a way to get more leverage at the negotiating table just underscores that he is not negotiating for the hardest deal possible. He's negotiating a deal that is going to put Iran on the path to a bomb, if not today or tomorrow, then 10 years from now."

On "Face the Nation" this morning.

Bill Clinton supposedly said: "The Obamas are out to get us any way they can."

Quoted in a NY Post article titled "Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal." The author, Edward Klein, cites sources inside "Bill Clinton’s camp" as having informed him that it was Valerie Jarrett, acting through others, who leaked details that made Hillary Clinton's email into a big issue. Klein also reports that "at Jarrett’s behest, the State Department" has begun "[s]ix separate probes," including Hillary's "use of her expense account, the disbursement of funds, her contact with foreign leaders and her possible collusion with the Clinton Foundation." Klein says: "the e-mail scandal was timed to come out just as Hillary was on the verge of formally announcing that she was running for president — and that there’s more to come." We're told Bill Clinton is "furious."

Klein offers this quote as supposedly coming from Bill: "My contacts and friends in newspapers and TV tell me that they’ve been contacted by the White House and offered all kinds of negative stories about us... The Obamas are behind the e-mail story, and they’re spreading rumors that I’ve been with women, that Hillary promoted people at the State Department who’d done favors for our foundation, that John Kerry had to clean up diplomatic messes Hillary left behind."

They’re spreading rumors that I’ve been with women...

It's so underhanded to make up the very stories people would be inclined to believe.

According to Klein, Obama/Jarrett's real objection to Hillary is that she's not liberal enough to preserve Obama's legacy:

“With Obama’s approval,” this source continued, “Valerie has been holding secret meetings with Martin O’Malley [the former Democratic governor of Maryland] and [Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren. She’s promised O’Malley and Warren the full support of the White House if they will challenge Hillary for the presidential nomination.”

"C.I.A. Cash Ended Up in Coffers of Al Qaeda."

The NYT reports.

“God blessed us with a good amount of money this month,” Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, the group’s general manager, wrote in a letter to Osama bin Laden in June 2010, noting that the cash would be used for weapons and other operational needs.