Rep. Barca should remember "big interests" are a bipartisan affair

Democratic Representative Peter Barca is up at Kos (via Capper) with a post that includes this:

 

A recent poll by the University of Wisconsin shows not only that a vast majority of Wisconsinites disapprove of Gov. Walker and his fellow Republicans in the state legislature, but also that 65% of Wisconsinites now believe that our state government is run for a few big interests rather than for all the people.

 

He thinks that 65% line is such a winner, he repeats it a few paragraphs later and by that time the "big interests" have become "big, special interests."  Who these big, special interests are, he doesn't say explicitly, but his meaning couldn't be any clearer if he hadn't actually written wink, wink, nudge, nudge.  He is, of course, counting on you the reader to read "big interest" and think "big business" or "corporations" or better yet "Koch brothers."

 

While this makes for great rhetoric, it's a lousy way to depict reality since Democrats in Wisconsin and beyond also have their own "big, special interests."  Labor unions, both public and private, and trial lawyers are known as solid Democratic constituencies with deep pockets and a willingness to fund candidates and PAC's.  Make no mistake, these interests are just as "big" and "special" as any that exist on the right.  It was only partially tongue-in-cheek when the right side of the cheddarsphere referred to former Governor Jim Doyle as a "wholly owned subsidiary of WEAC."

 

I believe the 65% figure Barca cites comes from this UW Badger Poll conducted by the University of Wisconsin Survey Center, but the relevant question doesn't distinguish between big interests that back Republicans and those that back Democrats.  If I had been asked if government was run for a few big interests, I also would have said yes.    The only difference being that I would have been thinking about AFSCME & WEAC rather than the Chamber of Commerce.

Why a balanced budget amendment is a bad idea

Robert Samuelson:

A balanced-budget amendment: Bad idea, for many reasons - PostPartisan - The Washington Post

The Constitution is the repository of the nation’s basic political principles. This is why it commands public respect. What the Constitution is not (and should not become) is a handbook for the day-to-day operations of government. The fatal flaw of the BBA is that it would take the Constitution in precisely this direction. It not only says the budget should be balanced, but one Republican version says it should be balanced at 18 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). That’s not a principle; it’s an instruction. Why not 17 percent or 22 percent of GDP? What happens in a national emergency?

Samuelson also notes that such an amendment would also "inspire evasion" which is a nice way of saying people will find ways to NOT follow the rules.  The problem with complex systems (like government rules) is that they create opportunities for creative people to find ways to bend them.

Additionally, I worry that these types of proposals give citizens the idea that there is some set of magic rules out there, just waiting to be discovered.  If only we could find them, we could give up the hard work of paying attention to politicians and their positions on the issues and take it easy for a while.  I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the government is not a Showtime Rotisserie; we can't just set it and forget it.

As the party of smaller government (at least in theory) Republicans ought to be looking for ways to simplify government, reduce regulation, and eliminate, not enact, rules wherever possible.  This includes eliminating the debt ceiling.

It is then up to us to hold our elected officials accountable for the votes they make, including votes to keep spending money we don't have.

What a Dave Hansen Vicotry Won't Tell Us

We may be living in an age when all politics is national, but reality remains very much a local phenomenon.  The reality in Wisconsin's 30th Senate district is that Democratic incumbent Dave Hansen is likely to defeat Republican challenger David VanderLeest in Tuesday's election.

This will be the first of the actual recall elections and a Hansen victory will likely be heralded as a sign that the tide in Wisconsin is firmly behind the Democrats, and pushing against Governor Scott Walker.  All I can say to this is don't believe it.  The only thing that a Hansen victory will tell us is that the voters of the 30th don't want to be represented by VanderLeest. 

While many voters in the district appreciate VanderLeest's efforts in the Hansen recall effort, the problems in his personal life are simply too numerous, too troubling, and too recent for many voters to consider sending him to Madison.

Does this mean that Wisconsin voters approve of the fact that Hansen and his Democratic colleagues in the Senate fled to Illinois in order to block the Governor's collective bargaining bill? I doubt it.  The plural of anecdote is not data, but many people I talk to are still quite upset at what they see as this ridiculous ploy which literally shut down the legislature of this state, at least on fiscal matters.  These days, such complaints are almost always immediately followed by another about Republican John Nygren, and his failure to get on the ballot to challenge Hansen.

The WisGOP has turned grassroots anger over Hansen's flight into a $243,000 mistake. That is how much Hansen reported in cash on hand recently.  Compare that to VanderLeest's $2000 raised.  As the Recess Supervisor notes:

But what I suspect is happening here is that the Democrats, who are already winning the fundraising war, are going to try and use this race as an exclamation point to get their donors pumped for the real races next month.

Right on cue, Chris Bowers is up at Kos with a post that ends in an appeal to contribute to the Democrats in the Wisconsin recalls.  The link he provides is to ActBlue, the fundraising clearinghouse where donors from all over the country can make small contributions to elections that do not even affect them.  I can imagine Democrats from Florida to Oregon heeding the call and then watching the results come in on Tuesday.  At that distance, they will be apt to read all sorts of things into a Hansen victory that simply aren't there. 

If I could send a message to these donors it would be this:  Democrats in Wisconsin and at the national level are happy for you to misread Tuesday's results.  This confusion sustains a flood of campaign cash unleashed initially by your anger over Scott Walker's policies, but don't kid yourself.  A sizable portion of Dave Hansen's constituents approve of the Governor's policies and were infuriated when Hansen fled to Illinois.  The state GOP failed spectacularly to capitalize on this sentiment, leaving Hansen to fend off a challenge from a flawed opponent.

That's the local reality.  Too bad it will be totally eclipsed by the national politics of Tuesday's election.

Comparing Brown County Returns for 2 SD Primary & WI Supreme Court

Click to enlarge.

Obviously Nancy Nusbaum won easily against fake Democrat Junkermann tonight, but do the Brown County results point to a Nusbaum victory over Senator Cowles next month?  The spreadsheet above compares tonight's vote with the vote totals from the Supreme Court recount in May.

As you can see Justice Prosser got 3,400 more votes than Nusbaum could muster in the areas of Brown County that are in the 2nd SD.  Prosser, of course, is not a perfect substitute for Cowles.  But every vote since last November has been a referendum on Govenor Walker, so the Prosser vote seems like a good proxy.

Also, Nusbaum got about 1,200 fewer votes than Kloppenburg did.  Perhaps this is just a result of the normal drop off of intensity during primaries, but this can't be a good sign for the Democrats.

Update - When I put this up last night, I meant to link to the Brown County results but forgot.  Here are the results for the 2 SD Dem primary and here are the WI Supreme Court recount results.

David VanderLeest, Duke of Wisconsin

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)^[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990^[2] which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%)."

Elsewhere, the otherwise erudite Illusory Tenant compares VanderLeest to David Duke:

Remember when Scott Walker went on the teevee to "debate" the racist David Duke, arguing that the white supremacist should be banned from the Republican presidential primary ballot? ... how come Walker isn't going after the VanderLeest Dave like he went after the Duke Dave?  

Duke is the nation's most notorious politician when it comes to matters of race. Do Wisconsin Democrats really fear David VanderLeest so much that they feel the need to draw a comparison with Duke?

Taken in isolation this might just be chalked up an anomaly, but on the heels of Graeme Zielinski's so-called "communications" via Twitter and the latest attack ad that can be seen over at Capper's place I can only conclude they are either worried or bored.

All of this underscores the point that the Wisconsin GOP has squandered a golden opportunity.  An incumbent Democratic Senator whose district went for Obama 56-42 is reduced to mounting a state wide coordinated campaign against an opponent who at best is a flawed candidate with ongoing personal issues.

Maybe Dave Hansen couldn't have been beaten by anybody in this climate, but a serious challenge could have exposed just how weak his support is.  Democrats around the country may applaud his flight to Illinois as courageous, but plenty of voters in the district see it for what it is:  Hansen participating in a ridiculous conspiracy to shut down the Wisconsin legislature and deprive the citizens of this state representation in Madison.

Update:  The Press Gazette details VanderLeest's various legal troubles.  They cast serious doubt on whether anyone should vote for him.  My favorite line though was that Senator, "Hansen shied away from questions about his opponent."  Of course he did, he has people for that!

Explaining Nancy Nusbaum's Fundraising

The news today is that in the second senate district Democratic challenger Nancy Nusbaum has outraised and has more cash on hand than incumbent Republican Rob Cowles.  Nusbaum raised about $77,000 more and has about $70,000 more on hand in cash.  Interesting to be sure, but perhaps not surprising.  Here's Kevin Binversie:

For liberals nationwide, the 2012 election starts this summer with nine recall elections in Wisconsin. For liberals, these recalls aren’t just about Wisconsin; they’re about the country’s very future. It’s a national fight that won’t just set the course for Wisconsin, but the course to congressional and presidential victory in 2012 and beyond.

I can't seem to find the detailed report of Nusbaum's contributors yet (here's the GAB3 form which only has a few individuals listed), but I did notice there were lots of conduit contributions from something called ActBlue, which bills itself as an online clearinghouse for Democratic action.  So the Wisconsin races have national prominence for a Democratic party still smarting from heavy losses last November (particularly here).  Combine that with the fact that there are excellent new tools for efficiently gathering and directing small campaign contributions from lots of donors, contributions that might have gone uncollected in years past, and Nusbaum's fundraising edge isn't all that surprising.

The Chief also hits on something that is a source of Nusbaum's strength and her weakness:

How can Bob Cowles get out-raised as badly as he's been by Nancy Nusbaum? Nusbaum is not someone the Dems plucked out of obscurity: she's a former Brown County executive who ran for congress in 2006 (and lost in the primary), so this ain't her first rodeo. 

That's exactly right, Nusbaum is well known in the area and has held office in the past.  This means that she doesn't have the surprise potential of a relative unknown (unlike the Hansen challenge in district 30) but does anyone in the area really believe Nancy Nusbaum represents a bold progressive vision for NE Wisconsin's future? 

Nancy Nusbaum is a proven candidate with a history of public service and name recognition in the area.  When the Democrats looked around for someone to challenge Cowles after taking more than a decade off of being competitive in the district, I'm not at all surprised they turned to Nusbaum.  It's these very qualities though, that make her appear as little more than a placeholder to voters in the district.  On the other hand, these characteristics are largely invisible to the out of state donors who are apt to use a site like ActBlue.

Combine a well-known and safe Democrat in Nusbaum, with a national mood of defiance following defeat at the polls last November, and the technology to gather lots of small (and large) out of state donations quickly and efficiently and the Nusbaum fundraising edge over Cowles really isn't surprising.  Whether or not it will be decisive remains to be seen.