Brew City Brawler

Have Republicans grown more paranoid or more stupid since 1992 -- or is it both?

I first became acquainted with right-wing media in 1992 whilst living south of the Mason Dixon line. The nascent Rush Limbaugh was my drug of choice and, man, was he a hoot. His show on Election Day was particularly Hootacular because, as you may suspect, caller after caller reported they had voted for  one-termer Bush.

There was a poignant moment when one caller suggested that maybe -- just maybe -- Bush might win because everybody he heard calling claimed they voted for Bush. Rush gently suggested to the listener (not in these words) that, no, you're listening to a self-selected group not representative of the whole.

"Oh, OK."

Now, of course, that listener would blame Republican defeat on the machinations of ACORN.

Losing NY-23 candidate Doug Hoffman became the latest in an increasingly long line of conservative politicians to blame his problems on ACORN yesterday despite the complete lack of evidence the organization played any role in his defeat.

The Republican base is with him though. PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately. Clearly the ACORN card really is an effective one to play with the voters who will decide whether Hoffman gets to be the Republican nominee in a possible repeat bid in 2010.

I think it's safe to say that, back in 1992, half the Republican electorate wasn't so whacked that they thought Clinton had stolen the election.

What's changed?

Well, I can't peer into the soul of Republicans or gauge the malleability of their brains but I would wager that the willingness of the right-wing media to scream "voter fraud!" "ACORN!" -- and the willingness of the Republican Party and supposed serious Republican voices --  has had something to do with it.

I mean, the Republican base has been instructed since Nixon not to believe anything the mainstream media says ... and certainly callers in to the Sykes show like to boast they no longer get the Journal Sentinel or watch the news (or presumably read the New York Times) ... if they listen to a right-wing media that's willing to say absolutely anything, what are they going to believe? And it's documented that watching Fox News makes you stupid.

I don't know for sure, but I'd wager Wisconsin Republicans beat the national average in believing Obama stole the election. Why? Because inept RPW chairman Reince Priebus says he's tired of losing elections because of voter fraud. Charlie Sykes told his listeners he was deeply concerned that ACORN could throw the election. Patrick McIlheran seems  to believe the absence of proof of voter fraud demonstrates it exists (Patrick McIlheran's concerns about registration fraud leading to voter fraud could be eased by findings in Washington State, but he can't let facts jar his curious faith). And Shark and Shepherd, while not willing to make an idiot of himself as is Sykes, hints that it's possible that a massive voter fraud conspiracy could exist -- we just don't know.

This crazy level of stupidity, ignorance or paranoia -- or a heady brew of all three -- is exactly what Sykes feeds into and it's of a piece with the popularity of Sarah Palin and the belief among her flock, against all evidence, that she is somehow representative of America (Dude, she quit her elected position mid-term!) or popular with most folks.

It's not a good place for a political party to be ... one wonders whether any conservative voice will attempt to lead his or her ideological confreres back to reality ... not that there's much reward in that in Republicanland these days.

The Youth of Today and the early 7 Seconds taught me some of life's most valuable lessons

Indeed.

PR 101 for Jessica McBride

1. Before performing an act of dubious morality, think "Do I want this to appear on the front page of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel?"

2. If you are the subject of a controversy that is clearly going to hit the papers, return the reporter's calls. Silence speaks volumes -- particularly if you're the only person who, over the course of the day (you know how they update, these newspaper blogs), doesn't comment.

3. If you are going to wait days to comment, at least make it coherent and on topic. No one really cares whether you wrote about gay marriage.

4. If you are not going to return a reporter's calls, no one is going to take your accusations of "lies" seriously, particularly if you're disputing facts as presented by police. Are you going to threaten to sue the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel as you did once before?

5. The sex lives of celebrities, even those of Z-grade widely unheard radio hosts, have been standard fare for media coverage for decades. If you're a family values politician, or married to one, that goes double. No one is going to raise the "Why is this news?" question seriously except for partisans. Complaining about it is like debating the merits of different brands of buggy whips. Was Britney Spears' sister's pregnancy newsworthy? You linked to it.

5. No one is going to take your whining about coverage of your "sex life" seriously when you label kids fair game in dishonest political attacks.

6. If you're going to write a long screed, at least address the immediate topic (i.e., has the affair been ongoing). Not mentioning it, or idle references to your "sex life," could be seen by some as a tacit admission that the latest reports are, in fact, true.

7. Throwing out unsubstantiated accusations of "libel" only makes you look silly. That said, it's good you're not employing the "my husband is a lawyer" threat anymore.

8. You say:  "I had no journalistic, nor any professional relationship, with Chief Flynn – nor did I anticipate ever having one again. I was a periodic freelancer who chose the stories I wanted to do and rejected the ones I didn’t." You say this to suggest there was no conflict of interest as you carried on with the chief. This is clearly disingenuous, however, as you continued to write about law enforcement issues that had some bearing on the chief. 

9. No matter how you spin it, you're not faculty.

10. Is this your final column for the Freeman? Because a self-indulgent piece like this certainly suggests it.

Jessica McBride might get tenure? Seriously?

When it comes to Jessica McBride, is Ed Flynn the cop who can't stop? That's unclear.

But it is clear that some at  UWM view the school's journalism department as a joke as they gave Jessica McBride the nod for the equivalent of tenture.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Bucher's divorce filing comes less than a month after the executive committee of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee's department of journalism and mass communication voted 3-2 to recommend that McBride be given indefinite status - the equivalent of tenure for academic staff.

McBride, a lecturer in the journalism department and a columnist for The Freeman, was represented by Bucher during the process. The recommendation for indefinite status still must be approved by the dean and provost.

Why is this disturbing? It's not because Jessica McBride is deeply ignorant, it's not because of the affair, it's not because of her politics. It's because she is a disaster as a journalist. The Brawler and others have long documented her history of character assassination, her disregard for accuracy (not the same as objectivity) and general slipshod journalistic ethics.

And, grudgingly, Milwaukee Magazine editor Bruce Murphy (who previously defended McBride) shed light on Jessica McBride's   behavior as a practicing journalist when this sordid affair came to light.

Bruce Murphy:

I think I was too defensive in reacting to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story reporting the affair between McBride and Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn. Worse, I am guilty of the same thing I accused JS reporter Daniel Bice of: I failed to do due diligence regarding the situation.

Specifically, I neglected to demand from McBride all of the e-mails between her and Flynn. I have now done that and was taken aback at what I received. (Brawler's bold) The e-mails do confirm that, other than their one interview in December, McBride and Flynn never met face-to-face until May 1, at their now-infamous encounter at an Irish bar. (In fact, Flynn was using his office e-mail account until then, which suggests neither McBride nor Flynn thought they were doing anything wrong; these are all public records.)

But the e-mails also suggest the two got chatty and friendly – strictly through e-mail, granted, but it’s a lot of e-mail – as soon as McBride finished reporting her story on Jan. 5. I’m also not confident I’ve seen all the e-mail, as McBride couldn’t be sure she hadn’t erased some. That’s all rather disturbing. (Brawler's bold)

Let's be clear. It takes a lot for an editor to call out a writer -- it takes a lot more for an editor to call out a writer who he defended. It takes a lot for an editor to say he lacks  confidence in a writer (and McBride's lack of certainty as to whether she erased email is a howler).

What does one look for in a journalism teacher. Obviously one looks for someone who can competently teach the nuts and bolts of journalism -- and in this economy, finding people who can do that ain't hard. But one also looks for someone who has an exemplary record as a practicing journalist, who's been in the trenches, who's operated ethically and who's conduct hasn't been called out by an editor.

The fact that three people on the executive committee thought Jessica lived up to those standards is more than a little confounding.

Thrice-married man approves of new Milwaukee archbishop's orthodoxy

That would be Charlie Sykes, of course.

My question: Is Charlie Sykes Catholic? Were his parents? Chuck talks a lot about the Church in the political realm but doesn't really talk about his faith at all.  Not that it matters over much, but given Chuck likes to define who is and isn't a good Catholic, it would be nice to know whether he's part of the mother church or just likes to use it as a club against politicians he doesn't like.

Will African-American turnout fall off a cliff in Wisconsin gubernatorial election?

It's pretty much conventional wisdom on the right and the left that African-American turnout will plummet in the 2010 Wisconsin gubernatorial election because Obama isn't on the ticket.

 I agree with the Chief, contra Wigderson,  that if this were to happen it would not be as important as it was in Virginia. I wonder if the dropoff will be as steep as some assume. 

Why's that? Simple. If we're talking the African American vote in Wisconsin, for all intents and purposes we're talking about Milwaukee. And there are any number of Milwaukee politicians who will be jockeying for Barrett's City Hall job should he be elected governor. Said pols are likely mindful that the mayor job is likely Barrett's for as long as he wants it -- or if he's elected to a bigger gig.

Suffice it to say these pols are going to be  highly motivated to activate their supporters and networks to get out the vote. They're going to want to position themselves as the guy (or gal) that put Barrett over the top.

Electing Tom Barrett as governor of Wisconsin is the first, necessary step to getting the first elected African-American mayor of Milwaukee. True, that's not as powerful as the Obama effect. But it's still a strong motivator nonetheless. Do I expect African-American turnout to drop? Sure. But I wouldn't bet on a precipitous decline.

Deep thought*

How does one square a) the assertion that Milwaukee is home to massive, election-swaying voter fraud and b) the fact that Scott Walker has consistently won low turnout (and thus easier to sway) elections in Milwaukee County?

* With apologies to Jay Bullock, who's been riffing on this internet tradition of late.

Shame on Rick Esenberg or Shark and Shepherd says something wrong on the internet

It takes a law professor to pack as much Obama Derangement Syndrome into 153 words as Rick Esenberg does in his latest opus,"Shame on Obama." The subject of his Ese's ire: Obama not going to Berlin to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Shark sets himself up as a voice of considered moderation. "There are some criticisms of Barack Obama that go too far," he says. Like, I dunno, fact-free accusations that Obama's stage at the Dem national convention was going to be a Greek temple. But Obama skipping the Berlin ceremonies goes too far! The fall of the wall was "one of the most significant and improbable events of the past fifty years; brought about, in large part, by constancy in American policy."

Let's unpack:

1. "Significant" -- sure
2. "Improbable" -- only improbable if one believed in hyped estimates of Soviet strength
3. "Brought about, in large part, by constancy in American policy" -- in this formulation, false; drop "large" and this phrase works fine.

Ese moves on:

To stay away is to send a message and it is the wrong message. Whether he seeks to placate the Russians, repudiate American exceptionalism or refuse to acknowledge a Republican accomplishment, rejecting what brought about one of the most remarkable and peaceful victories over tyranny is shameful.

OK:

1. Given Medvedev was in Berlin --  and Obama did deliver a message via video -- it's difficult to see how Obama's absence was motivated by fear of Russians
2. I'm not sure how Shark would articulate American exceptionalism, so can't comment on this. Obviously it's not clear that American exceptionalism, broadly defined, is a good thing.

Republican accomplishment. Ah, a laugh out loud line. This is Rick's defense of this statement, in comments at his site:

It's a Republican accomplishment because Reagan decided to win the Cold War. Had Carter been reelected, it would not have happened because he wouldn't have applied pressure when he had to.

One hopes that Rick expects a bit more supporting evidence from his students because this is about as fact-free assertion as one can make. Here are some facts. There is no evidence that the Reagan arms buildup "bankrupted" or weakened the Soviet Union. There is no evidence that bellicose Reagan rhetoric frightened the Soviets out of their wits -- quite the opposite (and seriously, apparatchiks who survived the Hitler invasion, either  as vets or as kids, were going to quiver over comments by Reagan?) . To the extent the ending of the Cold War was anyone's accomplishment, it was the accomplishment of Mikhail Gorbachev,who didn't want to play anymore. Had he wanted to take the USSR down the bellicose path, the country could have lumbered on. But he gambled that he could change it (and lost). Reagan's contribution was recognizing that Gorbachev could be dealt with and tried to deal (earning the wrath of the right).  As James Mann puts it in "The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A  History of the End of the Cold War": "Reagan didn't win the Cold War; Gorbachev abandoned it."

Just ask Angela Merkel:

She lauded Gorbachev, with whom she shared an umbrella amid a crush of hundreds, eager for a glimpse of the man many still consider a hero for his role in pushing reform in the Soviet Union.

"You made this possible — you courageously let things happen, and that was much more than we could expect," she said.

Now, the Brawler doesn't know why Obama didn't show. Presumably it had to do with passing a health care bill -- a defense Esenberg sneers at before muttering about the need for more debate as if the GOP had any interest in being an honest debate partner.

In any event, Esenberg demonstrates his true seriousness by concluding thusly:

For the winner of a faux peace prize to ignore one of history's singular triumphs for peace is an embarassment.

OH! Faux peace prize. The Brawler would suggest that the Shark should think about who's embarrassing himself here.

The Brawler scoops Dan Bice Again:The Obama wants Barrett to run for guv edition

WOW! Did Dan Bice of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel have a scoop today! Check this out: The Obama Administration wants Barrett to run for governor!

Here's the story:

 Tom Barret got a phone call from the president after making national news. Should he expect another call, this time to throw his hat in the ring for governor?

Whoops! That (erroneous spelling and all) was of course from a a Brawler post dated, lessee... September 5,  2009.

So it only took Dan "Bloodhound" Bice a mere month and 21 days to sniff out a story that the Brawler, by managing to put two and two together, figured out without any, you know, sources. Just the power of thinking things through.

Let's see what else the Brawler had to say back then, when the situation was much more fluid because of Ron Kind's flirtation with running:

Given that early Obama supporter Doyle and his team aren't particularly high on Barb "Vote Hillary" Lawton ....and that while Pelosi had apparently given Kind her blessing to run (and Kind's been making the rounds among muckity mucks to gauge support), the D's can't want to lose a seat they don't have to in 2010 ... perhaps he will. I'd imagine Tom could get Team Doyle support (noting how they're teaming up on taking over MPS ... a move that wouldn't play at all badly with out-of-Milwaukee voters).

It is indeed difficult to imagine a Dem from Milwaukee winning the governor's seat. But given the rise of  in Dem identification in Wisconsin, maybe it's not as outre a concept as it seems.

And if it's Barrett vs. Walker, how many out-state voters stay home? Or does JB Van Hollen see his chance?

Shoot! What will those pajama clad bloggers think of next? (Though, indeed, it remains to be seen whether VH throws his hat in the ring.)

Of course, long time Brawler reader knows that the Brawler has a penchant for reporting Bice's news in advance.

For instance,  The Brawler was able to determine thatChief Flynn was not happy about the musty cop "voter fraud" report being pushed without his OK (a report, that btw, pointed out a lot of RPW claims of voter fraud in 2004 were entire crap, a fact that would be apparent to voter fraud true believer Patrick McIlheran if he read such report.) And then Bice did the same!

And most famously, the Brawler figured out that RPW honcho Rick Wiley pimped "voter fraud" conspiracies to Karl Rove almost a month before Bice managed to piece it together.

No quarter, indeed.

The latest evidence Charlie Sykes is a cobag

Charlie Sykes was never a particularly coherent thinker/propagandist -- it's difficult to reconcile being a moralizer with being married three times -- but the cognitive dissonance has been to 11 ever since Obama was elected. Sykes will say on his show he thinks Sarah Palin is over (yet continue to shill for Sarah Palin because that's the goddess of his herd) and he'll say he opposed TARP (even though he adocated it).

In short, Charlie Sykes is a cobag -- he's full of shit and he floods the airwaves with it.  A rude comparison, to be sure, but Sykes deserves nothing more.

The latest example of his general cobaggishness would be an asinine post showing people lining up for swine flu shots, saying "Ladies and Gentlemen, I Bring You Government Health Care." To which really, the Brawler says, Amen, because where is the miracle of the market on this right now? But lines are bad, so Charlie has an intellectually coherent point.

Meanwhile, MU law professor Rick Esenberg believes Charlie Sykes is a man to be taken seriously:

Another theme was to take me to task for suggesting that Charlie Sykes is a reasonable guy. As I have said before, talk radio is not a faculty workshop. It's entertainment and, because it is, there needs to be a certain vibrancy that can get in the away of a perfectly detached and neutral conversation. Within the confines of the medium, I think that Charlie does a fairly good job of maintaining a civilized discourse.

Hate to see Ese's definition of uncivilized discourse.

UPDATE: Slightly edited