Dammit, that's not what I meant.

Two weeks ago, I said the following in a comment on Owen's blog:

America has, by and large, reached a very comfortable detente on this issue that I think the overwhelming majority of Americans are generally satisfied with. Even the Christian right seems to have moved on to other agenda items. When’s the last time you heard about Operation Rescue doing anything newsworthy?

How’s this to summarize the issue? Abortion: Nobody cares.

Guess I spoke too soon.

Murder is always wrong. Two wrongs never make a right. In an orderly society, vigilante justice is never acceptable. And no matter what some people think of what George Tiller did some of the time at his practice, the fact remains that George Tiller was not breaking the law.

It is, of course, always great to see the holier-than-thou social conservatives turn into a bunch of moral utilitarians when it comes to murdering a doctor who performs abortions. Please remind me to permanently unsubscribe from all your bullshit, sanctity of life diatribes. I guess murder is wrong unless it's a sinner we don't like, in which case hey, it's for the greater good.

My thoughts and prayers go out to Tiller's family and friends. I can't say I'm particularly enamored with the man's work, but no man's legacy is defined solely by his profession. And nobody deserves to be murdered in cold blood, no matter how much some lunatic pro-lifer doesn't like what he does, and no matter how many other lunatic pro-lifers are willing to defend it.

On and on and on...

The problem with letting a majority of voters decide an individual's constitutional rights is that it invites a near-endless struggle at the ballot box.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Gay leaders say they are moving into campaign mode with an eye toward trying to repeal Proposition 8 at the ballot box as early as next year after the state Supreme Court upheld the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages.

"So the court has said we have to go back," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California. "We believe the political drive, the momentum, is there to do that."

Also, gay marriage aside, can we all agree that California's system of ballot propositions is one of the worst experiments in democracy ever? Constitutions are meant to be a framework for governance, not a vehicle by which citizens can make an end run around their elected officials.

Can the GOP turn the corner?

Most of you know that in recent JFC action, the committee voted to approve both domestic partnership benefits for state employees, and to offer resident tuition to certain undocumented residents of Wisconsin.

When it comes to the financial future of Wisconsin, neither is a big issue. Resident tuition is revenue-neutral (in part because the UW System can make it so), and unless one wishes government to view the world through a religiously-tinged prism, denying benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees is as arbitrary and random as denying benefits to partners of people who have blue eyes, or are left-handed. There simply is no logical reason to do it.

These issues are one day stories. They are of major importance to narrow groups of state residents, and most everyone else just shrugs their shoulders. They'll also be a major test of whether the new minority GOP has learned the lessons that put it in the minority.

Here's the GOP dilemma with these issues. They are the kind of things that work a small number of conservatives into a batshit-crazy, foamy-mouth furor. They are the same sort of political crack that voter fraud and gay marriage and liberal judges are made of, the same kind of political crack the GOP of this decade has become addicted to.

Instead of focusing on issues and solutions that can sustain a long-term majority, the GOP of recent years has been more concerned about finding one more explosive wedge issue to get through one more election cycle. In 2002, we were told that Democrats weren't patriotic. In 2004 and 2006, we were told that gay marriage would ruin America. In 2006 and 2008, we listened to the base squawk about immigration. Soon, we'll get to watch Rush Limbaugh and a bunch of other old, crotchety white guys take wild swings at the woman who will almost certainly be our first Hispanic Supreme Court justice. Each cycle, the GOP looks frantically for one more hit, one more bogeyman to use.

There's nothing to be gained in the long-term by staking the party's political future to opposing issues like this. One can already see the fine job this approach (and its messenger-in-chief) have done in turning an entire generation of voters into Democrats. Early political identity tends to be persistent. That old canard about voters getting more conservative as they age? Not so much.



The question for 2010 is what the GOP will be for? Can it reclaim the mantle of ideas-driven politics that it rode to success in the 90's, or will it continue clinging to its negative, fear-driven approach of this decade? Will it focus on battles it can win, or will it simply pick fights for the sake of fighting? The next few months will be telling.

Dear GOP: Here's your rope.

Let's see if you can avoid tying it into a noose and slipping it around your own neck.

Reporting from Washington -- President Obama today nominated federal judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York for the Supreme Court, positioning the longtime federal jurist to become the first Latino and only the third woman on the nation's highest court.

Sotomayor became a judge on the federal district court for the Southern District of New York in 1991 and was elevated to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1998.

Obama, who has said that he wants a new justice with "a common touch" and a measure of "empathy," also is offering a measure of ethnic diversity to a court dominated by white men in his replacement of the retiring Justice David Souter. The nine-member court includes just one female justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and one black justice, Clarence Thomas.

"I have decided to nominate an inspiring woman, who I believe will make a great justice," said Obama, standing with Sotomayor by his side in the East Room of the White House.

I wish I could say my endorsement of this Latina-flavored chaos played a role in this selection, but it probably came down Judge Sotomayor's qualifications. Now it'll be up to the Senate GOP to ask tough questions while simultaneously keeping the conservative freak show outside (and inside) their caucus from making all Republicans seem like hate mongers. Good luck with that!

Paranoia is never flattering

Back when I was a committee clerk, I once had to sit through a lengthy informational hearing on comprehensive planning. Some of the information was helpful - no surprise that the helpful stuff usually comes from lobbyists. But of course, the danger with a public hearing always lies in the word "public." You never quite know what's going to show up.

The highlight of that hearing was when a land-use crazy from central Wisconsin broke out some charts and began to talk to us about how the United Nations was secretly taking over all of world's regulatory bodies related to land use, right down to Wisconsin's town boards and regional planning commissions. It was quite possibly the most elaborate and sincerely believed conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

There were two things that were remarkable about this. First, that the lobbyists, UW-Extension staff, local government officials, and those of us at the head of the table were able to stifle our laughter for 15 minutes. I for one had to look down and doodle on my notepad to avoid making eye contact with anyone else, for fear that I would begin laughing hysterically.

Second, that Rep. Gronemus started asking follow-up questions based on this person's testimony as though she actually believed it were true.

In any case, the moral of the story is that paranoia is never a good look on anyone. Not when it comes to land use, not when it comes to alleging that Democrats are stealing elections through rampant voter fraud, and not when you're suggesting that the CIA is out to get you.

Democrats charged Tuesday that the CIA has released documents about congressional briefings on harsh interrogation techniques in order to deflect attention and blame away from itself.

“I think there is so much embarrassment in some quarters [of the CIA] that people are going to try to shift some of the responsibility to others — that’s what I think,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and was briefed on interrogation techniques five times between 2006 and 2007.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said he finds it “interesting” that a document detailing congressional briefings was released just as “some of the groups that have been responsible for these interrogation techniques were taking the most criticism.”

Asked whether the CIA was seeking political cover by releasing the documents, Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said: “Sure it is.”

I think what the CIA is actually doing is pointing out that a lot of high-ranking Democrats knew perfectly well how it was interrogating people in U.S. custody and never bothered to do a damn thing about it. Democrats want to pretend they knew nothing, and the CIA is offering evidence contrary to that claim. Even if the CIA leaked certain documents and even if those leaks are unethical, it doesn't change anything about how bad the Democrats look for playing dumb and hoping that nobody would catch on.

Boy, it's fun watching politicians squirm.

Penny wise, pound foolish

I'm sure we all remember those atrociously-produced Mark Green for Governor commercials from 2006, especially the one where the parent (probably an actor pretending to be a parent) carped about how little Jimmy couldn't get into a state university because the scary out-of-staters were taking all the spots (Boogeyman alert!). Funny stuff. Not particularly true, but funny...

As Money magazine reminds us, much of the reason that flagship public universities have become increasingly selective is because public officials keep taking the public money out of public education.

Even before the recession, money was tight on many campuses. From 2000 to 2008, state aid to public colleges nationwide fell from $7,800 a student to just over $7,000, according to the group State Higher Education Executive Officers. (That number is inflation-adjusted for the rising price of running a college.)

The drop looks worse if you consider what happened for the competition. Top private universities, propped up by high tuitions, big endowments, and donations, were poaching some of the best faculty from flagship public schools, says Kathleen Sell, former chief budget officer for the University of Wisconsin system. Now top private schools spend almost twice as much per student on instruction as top publics.

If politicians want to view a college education as a private good and not a public investment, that's fine. That's a choice. But let's not pretend that choice doesn't have consequences, both in terms of access and affordability.

In 1998, UW-Madison admitted 12,095 students from 16,467 applications. Of those, 5,596 enrolled. That's an admission rate of 73% and a yield rate of 46%.

In 2008, UW-Madison admitted 13,438 students from 25,478 applications. Of those, 5,774 enrolled. That's an admission rate of 53% and a yield rate of 43%.

What can we determine? Well, that the admission rate has dropped precipitously while the yield rate remains firmly planted in the mid-40's over that time frame is telling. In looking at the number of enrolled students over this period, it seems that the school is aiming to enroll between 5,500-5,800 freshmen each fall. In other words, the school hasn't added any appreciable capacity to keep up with the 55% increase in applications.

An increase in capacity primarily requires three things: places to house students, space to educate them, and money to pay instructors. In other words, capital investment, capital investment, and capital investment. Unfortunately, there has been a marked decrease in Capitol investment during this period when compared to overall increases in cost, which forces the institution to rely more heavily upon tuition as a source of day-to-day funding.

As is always the case, politicians believe they can have fast, good, and cheap, and they get whiny and huffy when it doesn't work. Fast is pretty much off the table - a college education takes 3-5 years to complete. So what the folks in Madison have to decide is whether they want cheap or good. If they want cheap, the exodus of talent from Wisconsin will continue, as more of the state's best and brightest will leave to get their education elsewhere. If they want good, someone has to pay for it, and that someone will either be taxpayers or students and parents.

They're all your constituents, guys. Good luck.

Obama at White House Correspondents' Dinner

A suggestion for gay marriage opponents

I know you guys lost another battle in Maine yesterday. Sorry about that, though I am glad to see so many of you are constructively sharing your thoughts and feelings over at Free Republic. That's really great.

Since so many of you are convinced that the problem with your assorted causes is not the message but rather the messenger, might I suggest that you ditch folks like Julianne Appling and all those old white guys in favor of someone who might help you with the demographic you're losing big - voters under 30?

By your logic, something tells me that Carrie Prejean can make more headway in support of opposite marriage than most of you. Especially if you send her out in public like this.

Club for Growth on warpath to lose another seat

This time, the ironically-named Club for Growth is on the warpath against popular Florida Governor and likely 2010 Senate candidate Charlie Crist.

Club Speaks Out For Rubio: The Club for Growth -- never one to keep its nose out of a contentious race (bless them!) -- sounded off in support of former state House Speaker Marco Rubio's newly announced Senate primary candidacy against Gov. Charlie Crist, a sign, perhaps, of their interest in getting involved in the race. "His fiscally responsible, pro-growth approach in the State Capitol stands in stark contrast with other elements of the state government, led by Charlie Crist," said Club president Chris Chocola. A spokesman for the Club said no endorsement decision had been made but if the Club does decide to weigh in for Rubio, it would almost certainly provide a significant financial boost for his candidacy. It would also further shape the rapidly emerging dynamic in the race between the conservative Rubio and the moderate Crist.

An open letter to Brett Favre

Hi Brett,

It's me, RS. You might remember when I raked you over the coals last summer, or possibly from my post in which I clearly illustrated how badly your career has spun out over the course of the last five years.

I still think you're self-absorbed and ego-driven, and don't care much about whatever legacy you thought you were creating in Green Bay. That's cool, it's your life and it's your legacy. Do with it what you want. Nobody's life is affected much by when you are enshrined in the Hall of Fame, or what team you want to go in under.

I'm just going to ask you for two things. They're small things, really.

First, please make a decision quickly. Not for the sake of the Vikings or the Packers, but for the millions of people who watch SportsCenter but don't want to see your stupid face plastered all over it like last summer. I don't need to experience your boyfriend, Gene Wojciechowski, blowing you kisses every day on ESPN.com. I don't want to see a picture of Chris Mortensen on my teevee while hearing him talk about you through some C-rate speakerphone. Just hurry up already.

My second request? Please please please please please Brett. Please come back and play for the Vikings. For as much as you think you can prove all of doubters wrong, we're pretty confident that you'll prove us right. The irony of you coming back to work with your old buddy Darrell Bevell is that he's the kind of QB the Vikings need right now, not you. The Vikings need someone who can hand the ball off, won't fumble, and can convert on 3rd-and-5. They don't need a primadonna gunslinger who has made himself the center of every team he's ever played for.

You might think you can be that guy. The role player. The drummer to Adrian Peterson's lead singer. I don't think you can, but boy I want to watch you try.

Thanks for reading, Brett. Here's to B.J. Raji sitting on your head a couple of times this fall.

Yours,
RS

Fiscal Conservative of the Day: Rep. Gary Sherman

It used to be that conservatives worked to find ways to make government do more with less. And so today, I'd like to give the fiscal conservative of the day award to Rep. Gary Sherman, for his budget motion to allow state offices and agencies to post legal notices online instead of in the newspaper of record, the Wisconsin State Journal. The only flaw is that his motion should be even broader, and allow local governments the same ability.

The logic behind this is simple. For years, local governments have been forced to spend money - your money - buying hundreds of thousands of column inches in Wisconsin newspapers to publish the full text of legal notices, bid requests, proceedings from school board meetings, you name it. Fewer and fewer people subscribe to newspapers every year. More and more people have internet access.

Posting these things online is free. Printing them in papers costs local governments millions of dollars each year.

Legislators have tried in the past to eliminate this and other types of notice requirements completely. However, many leggies (especially in rural areas) are terrified of editorial boards and reporters going after them for taking away a guaranteed revenue source from their local tabloids.

Rep. Mark Gottlieb and Sen. Julie Lassa made some progress last session. Now, local governments can publish summaries of legal notices instead of the full text, provided it includes information about where the full text can be obtained. Fine effort, but hardly what the doctor ordered.

And who's behind all this taxpayer extortion? Oh look, it's the WNA - the Welfare for Newspapers Association.

Take a look at the WNA's lobbying reports from 2005 and 2007. Allowing mailing or Internet posting of legal notices? Opposed! Solicitation of bids by electronic auction? Opposed! Posting school board minutes on a website? Opposed! Soliciting bids on the internet? Opposed!

Hell, if you went back to records from the 1970's and saw "relating to: the creation of the internet," Peter Fox probably opposed that as well.

Their rationale? Stuff like this:

"The Wisconsin Newspaper Association opposes all legislation which weakens the public's right to know about governmental activity. "

You mean the public's right to read the sports section, skip over the legal notices, and go straight to the weather? Or the public's right to never open the classifieds, or whatever other dark, godforsaken corner of the paper these notices get buried in?

This isn't about the public's right to know jack squat, and my heart goes out to anyone that has to put up with the WNA's crap, or boo-hoo stories from their local papers. This is about newspapers not wanting to give up their gravy train of guaranteed revenue from taxpayers.

Here's hoping the Legislature goes one step further and amends the Sherman provision to include all units of government. The sooner someone takes this taxpayer-gilded chew toy away from the WNA, the better off taxpayers will be.

Reverse anthropomorphism

We're all familiar with Mr. Ed, America's favorite anthropomorphic equine. But who knew that an equine could make a human act like a horse? Or maybe just a horse's ass...

WISN-AM (1130) talker Mark Belling is a guy who knows his way around a horse track, being part owner of a horse that came in second in the 1997 Kentucky Derby.

So when Belling blogged last week with predictions on Saturday's big race at Churchill Downs, his forecast on the No. 8 horse got some notice:

"If this horse wins, I'll never bet on another race and will vote for Jim Doyle for re-election."

That horse, of course, was Mine That Bird, who won at odds of 50-to-1.

Belling's blognostication was copied all over the Web, most frequently by bloggers on the other end of the spectrum from the conservative Belling.

State Democratic Party Chairman Joe Wineke e-mailed Belling a party membership card: "Unlike the other side, we are a big tent party that welcomes people of all political leanings - and we are glad to have you."

Belling changed his pledge Monday...

Then again, what's to be expected from a guy who blasts RINOs on his radio show but then gives money to Democrats in contested races where control of the Senate hangs in the balance? Don't care if he was a college buddy, Mark. Still makes you a hypocrite.

The Decider?

Someone thinks President Obama's already got his SCOTUS nominee figured out:

After talking to President Barack Obama on the phone today, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch says he believes the White House will move swiftly on its Supreme Court nominee, perhaps making an announcement by the end of this week.

Obama made no timing commitments to the Utah Republican, but the senator, who has been in the middle of several pitched Supreme Court battles, said: “I’d be surprised if it went beyond this week. ... I would think by the end of this week or over the weekend, he’ll nominate somebody. I’m sure they’ve discussed this internally, back and forth for months now.”

... No names were discussed during the Monday telephone call, but Hatch, a senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said Obama promised to get back to him and “will let me know who he thinks ought to be considered. ... Sure I’d like him to chat with me, because I think I could save him a lot of pain.”

Gee, Orrin Hatch volunteering his services? Who'd have thought that would happen? Also, congratulations to Sen. Jeff Sessions on being named the ranking member of Judiciary, I guess. Maybe this is the other big O's way of showing Sen. Sessions who swings the stick on that committee.

Reasons the GOP ship is sinking, vol. 826

Position your party on the wrong side of generational battles.

Fifty-four percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday say marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, with 44 percent suggesting they should be considered legal.

But among those 18 to 34 years old, 58 percent said same-sex marriages should be legal. That number drops to 42 percent among respondents aged 35 to 49, and to 41 percent for those aged 50 to 64. Only 24 percent of Americans 65 and older support recognizing same-sex marriages, according to the poll.

While a majority of those polled oppose legalizing gay marriage, six of ten said states that do not recognize gay marriages should allow civil unions. When it comes to supporting civil unions, the poll indicates a similar generational shift...

Forty-nine percent of those questioned say they have a family member or close friend who is gay. That's up eight points from 1998 and 17 points from 1992. Fifty-eight percent of those aged 18 to 34 say they have a family member or close friend who's gay. That drops to just one in three of people 65 or older.

"People who say they have a gay friend or relative support same-sex marriage," Holland notes. "Most of those who say they don't know anyone who is gay, oppose gay marriage."

Socially conservative activists know well that the only way they can win this battle is by trying to scare homosexuals back into the closet, or from coming out in the first place. That won't happen. The only question is how long the GOP will live in denial about the fact that shacking up with the Mike Huckabee crowd is a long-term losing proposition.

Thoughts on Jack Kemp

I cast my first presidential ballot in 1996 for Bob Dole and his running mate, Jack Kemp. There was never a lot of appeal to Bob Dole, at least to me. I voted for Lamar Alexander in the primary. I appreciated Dole's service to our country, but Bob Dole was the kind of politician who seemed to advocate whatever would get him the most votes. Besides, the only reason he was the nominee was that a bunch of people decided it was "his turn."

Kemp, on the other hand, was a different story. Here was a guy who clearly believed that while politics was important, it was ideas that mattered most. Whether it was his push for tax cuts in the 1980's, or his desire to improve the economics of America's inner cities through enterprise zones and changes to public housing policies, or his opposition to Prop 187 in California, Jack Kemp believed in something. After finishing his work as HUD Secretary in 1993, Kemp co-founded Empower America, an organization that advocated free market principles while staying away from the social issues that even then were beginning to cause fissures within the party's foundation.

And of course, there was Kemp's vice-presidential campaign in 1996, one in which the vice presidential nominee was perhaps more qualified to be president than the presidential candidate himself. Perhaps there's a lesson in there as well to those who still today suggest that folks should just bow out of primaries so the party can nominate someone because it's "his turn." A lot of times, that gets you Bob Dole.

One wonders today if a man who supported tax cuts, immigration reform, and government as a tool for positive change would be allowed by the conservative extremists to call himself a Republican. I would hope so, but sadly I have my doubts - even though Kemp's politics were closer to Reagan's than most of today's modern conservative movement.

Yet Kemp's brand of conservatism is what the GOP needs to rediscover in order to find its way out of the woods - optimistic but not blind, principled but not divisive. It was the kind of conservatism that coalesced individuals around those matters with which many could agree. It was the kind of conservatism that allowed a Republican to win even in a blue-collar, industrial, pro-union part of New England.

I never had the pleasure of meeting Jack Kemp in person, but those I know who have say that he was one of the classiest guys you could hope to find anywhere, let alone in politics. Here's hoping today's GOP can rediscover some of the lessons he taught us.

Playground endorses Judge Sonia Sotomayor and ensuing right-wing chaos for SCOTUS

The announcement of Justice David Souter's pending retirement has certainly gotten many on what's left of the right wing up in a kerfuffle already, as they try to figure out how exactly one effectively opposes a nomination when one has but 40 votes in the Senate to work with.

One name in particular is of high interest, in part because her nomination would once again pit the Republican Party in a death battle between those who see a way forward and those who want to fight yesterday's losing battles. That person is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who presently serves on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

Given the changing demographic of swing states, the GOP can ill afford to further alienate the emerging Hispanic base in states like California, Texas, Arizona, and Florida. Collectively, those states account for 118 House seats, 8 Senate seats, and 126 electoral votes. There is also a substantial Hispanic community in Colorado, another state the GOP can't afford to lose - especially when one considers that the conservative wing of the party has all but destroyed the GOP in New England.

Politically, there are no points to be scored by objecting to a Sotomayor nomination. She was nominated to her first federal judgeship by a Republican (George H.W. Bush), and was supported by both the Republican (Al D'Amato) and Democratic (Daniel Patrick Moynihan) senators in her home state. And when you consider that guys like Sen. Orrin Hatch have voted for her previously, she's got all the bipartisan insulation she could possibly need.

But at the same time, there will be an enormous wail from the screech-and-guffaw wing of the GOP about any Obama nomination. They will find any reason possible to attack any nominee, without considering for a single moment the political ramifications of attacking an Hispanic female whose nomination would be groundbreaking.

As we've seen time and again through bungled efforts by the Club for Growth that has cost the GOP seats in Rhode Island, Maryland, and New Mexico (to name a few), conservatives have no sense of timing. They will act on what they claim are their principles even if it means making their own political goals more difficult to accomplish. If their goal is to return to a position of power, then they need to understand that there is a time to dissent and a time to shut up and take your medicine.

And yet, conservatives will be wholly unable to resist the opportunity to kick at someone like Sotomayor, even as it hurts their own cause in the long run. It's just like the kid who can't stay out of the cookie jar even though he knows it's going to get him grounded.

Discipline is a large part of what is needed to get any political party out of the weeds and back into power. Discipline is also the one thing that the conservative movement completely lacks, preferring instead the approach of the petulant child. Listen to their radio shows. Read their blogs. This isn't a movement about creating a majority-producing agenda. This is a movement about bitching and whining and telling each other that, if only the world listened to them, it would all be better. They are enablers of the first order.

Obama should nominate Sotomayor because she's qualified and will bring a different background to the court. But he shouldn't be ignorant of the chaos and high comedy that her nomination would produce for the rest of us.

Conservatives stand by ready to dig the hole deeper, Mr. President. Please hand them the shovel.