Brew City Brawler

Dallas vs. Green Bay, November 23, 1997

Can we coexist with Dallas Cowboys fans who remind us of terrible games? (The Brawler actually has fond memories of watching Pack-Cowboy games of this era at a Washington DC sports bar. Fans of other teams would periodically hear Packer backers cheer and ask what happened. "Touchdown?" "No, Packers got a first down." That sometimes seemed like quite a victory against the hated Cowboys.)

But now for happier memories.

From Packers.com:

Seldom has a game seen a more startling turnabout than the one which transpired in the second half of the Packers' 45-17, Sunday victory over the Dallas Cowboys in Lambeau Field, awash with gold "Title Towels" and hunters' orange on a cold but sunny November afternoon which saw the wind chill at kickoff register a minus-4 degrees.

At the intermission, it was a 10-10 standoff and there was no hint of the Green Bay domination to come, especially after each team had possessed the football for exactly 15 minutes during the first half of play.

The Packers came out for the third quarter with a mission, however, and proceeded to take total control of the situation. Fashioning methodical drives of 69, 73, 61 and 88 yards, they scored on all four of their second half possessions in mounting a 38-17 lead with just under 2 minutes remaining in the game.

Who can forget Michael Irvin's post-game analysis?

``The last time I got beat like this was by my father," added receiver Michael Irvin, "(and) my father's been dead for quite a while.''

Oh, yes. The Cowboy fan also wrote a very very long piece about the coexist bumper sticker controversy (that the Brawler, as the Cowboy fan pointed out, failed to link to before) that still managed to miss the point on more than a few occasions. The Brawler would say more, but doesn't want to pile on before what will surely be a heartbreaker for the Cowboy fan.

Pack by 6.

The Vatican is coexisting with Iran!

Should George Bush decide to attack Iran before he leaves office, there's little doubt that Journal Sentinel columnist and Roman Catholic Patrick McIlheran will applaud the move.

It's reasonable to assume that Pope Benedict XVI, or B-16 as dad29 calls him, won't.

Time magazine has an interesting story about how Iran is hoping the Vatican will intercede if the U.S. seeks to get bogged down in another Middle Eastern country.

From the report:

According to several well-placed Rome sources, Iranian officials are quietly laying the groundwork necessary to turn to Pope Benedict XVI and top Vatican diplomats for mediation if the showdown with the United States should escalate toward a military intervention. The 80-year-old Pope has thus far steered clear of any strong public comments about either Iran's failure to fully comply with U.N. nuclear weapons inspectors or the drumbeat of war coming from some corners in Washington. But Iran, which has had diplomatic relations with the Holy See for 53 years, may be trying to line up Benedict as an ace in the hole for staving off a potential attack in the coming months. "The Vatican seems to be part of their strategy," a senior Western diplomat in Rome said of the Iranian leadership. "They'll have an idea of when the 11th hour is coming. And they know an intervention of the Vatican is the most open and amenable route to Western public opinion. It could buy them time."

If the situation heats up in the coming months, the question of exactly what role the Vatican would play could become pivotal. Says one high-ranking Vatican official: "The Iranians look to the Holy See with particular attention. It is born from our common religious matrix. This could be utilized to offer ourselves as an intermediary if the crisis worsens." Among the potential moves: a forceful series of public appeals by the Pope, a Vatican emissary sent to Washington and Tehran, or a visit to the Vatican by Iranian President President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

****************

Moreover, [Vice Ambassador Fahima] said he doubts that the United States can resolve key regional issues in the Middle East, including Iraq and Lebanon, without the help of Iran. "We don't expect the superpower will attack," Fahima concluded. "But if they do, I am sure the Holy See would not be favorable to such a choice."

****************

And over recent months, the conversations have centered on the looming showdown over Iran's nuclear program. Says one key Catholic Church player involved in these discussions: "The Pope will speak explicitly only when the conditions call for it. One difference this time [compared with Iraq] is that we're hoping the American bishops could speak out [against any attack plans]. That would be of great help."

For now, Benedict is maintaining a low profile. During his September trip to Austria, the Pope chose not to address the Iranian nuclear question in a key speech to world diplomats in Vienna, which is the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Though Vatican officials say they are concerned about Iran's development of nuclear arms, the pontiff is both doctrinally bound and personally inclined to pursue a negotiated settlement at almost any cost. In 2003, then serving as a senior Vatican Cardinal, the current Pope was firmly behind John Paul II's opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Indeed, many in Rome cite parallels between the current push from American hardliners to confront Iran and the walkup to the war in Iraq. "The Holy See hasn't forgotten what happened in Iraq," says one Vatican insider. "Seeing how that situation has developed, there is great, great prudence on the part of the Holy See. The judgment shown on Iraq weighs on the Iran situation."

This was an interesting passage (Brawler bold):

Indeed, while home to a relatively small Christian minority, Iran is seen at the Vatican as a key player in the broader context of inter-faith relations. Religious experts say that Catholicism and Shi'a Islam have a surprisingly similar structure and approach to their different faiths. "What you have in Iran is a strong academic tradition, with both philosophical and mystical aspects — in many ways like Catholicism," says Father Daniel Madigan, a Jesuit scholar of islam, and a member of the Vatican's commission for religious relations with Islam who helped arrange for Khatami's visit. There is also a clerical hierarchy in Shi'ism that is absent in other forms of Islam. Madigan notes that Iranians have long studied other cultures and religions. "They know their Western stuff," he said. "Right now, they're isolated because of sanctions, but they really do want to interact with the world." And Rome is one place the interaction has already begun.

That sound you heard was the exploding head of dad29, the unacknowledged papl nuncio to Brookfield.

Now, if the dhimmis at the Vatican only read deep thinkers like Texas Hold Em Blogger, or slightly more literate ones like Norman Podhoretz, they'd realize that you can't deal with a country like Iran -- or Muslims really. You can't deal with the religion of piece (of arm, of leg, of torso), period.

But perhaps B-16 sees things a little differently. No doubt he dislikes the Iran regime. And with good reason. But perhaps he sees little good would come of a war with Iran -- beyond that whole deal about killing people. With a sense of history, he knows that Western "regime change" in Iran has never led to anything good. Can Iran moderate on its own? No one can predict the future. But one thing certainly wouldn't create a new Iran: war.

Should it come down to that, to whom will McIlheran listen? Bush or Benedict?

We know whom he chose to follow in the lead up to Iraq.

Milwaukee's Right Wing demonstrates "pure genius" over Coexeist bumpersticker

The Milwaukee right has had a high time mocking the Coexist bumpersticker (the one that uses religious symbols to spell out the word, with the Islamic crescent as the C), praising a "parody" that likens Islam to Nazism and condemning the Interfaith Council of Greater Milwaukee for asking Charlie Sykes to remove said bumper sticker.

"Smug" was the insult of choice against the original bumper sticker.

Kay and Capper of  Team Whallah! performed a public service over the weekend by pointing out who popularized the bumper sticker. And turns around it was not a bunch of fuzzy-minded, pot-smoking, pachouli-exuding hippies. Rather it was popularized by an Israeli organization dedicated to peace and, well, coexistence.

Here's how the Museum on the Seam describes its mission (Brawler's bold):

Museum on the Seam is a unique museum in Israel, displaying contemporary art that deals with different aspects of the socio-political reality.

Through the works of artists from Israel and abroad, who respond to the stress and tension between and within groups, the museum invites the visitors to examine the degree of influence of the social environment on the individual and vice versa.

Between the local and the universal, between pluralism and extreme ideologies, the message of The Museum calls for listening and discussion, for accepting the other and those different from us and respect for our fellow man and his liberty.

Let's compare that statement -- by an Israeli institution which likely knows a bit more about the realities of the Middle East and the challenge of coexistence than, say, Dad29 in his bunker in Brookfield -- with the rhetoric of the right. (Brawler's bold throughout).

Here's what Charlie Sykes had to say in response to Interfaith's request:

At the risk of speaking for Mr. McMahon, I believe his point was that despite the smug assurance of the original “Coexist” bumper sticker, there are some things – evils -- that we cannot simply “coexist with.” These would include Communism and Nazism. You cannot coexist with Nazism, you must resist it and fight it. ... By substituting the hammer and sickle and swastika in the original image, McMahon “raises the bar” for those who smugly seem to suggest that we have no differences, that we should just get along and sing kumbaya. You can’t sing kumbaya with Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin

(Hey, Chuck: Maybe that's why symbols associated with Hitler and Stalin didn't appear on the bumpersticker in the first place.)

Dad29, first on his blog:

The parody was inspired by the snarky, condescending "Co-Exist" bumper stickers (which are, evidently, weenie-approved.)

Then in comments at the Marquette Clown Warrior he weighs in and throws around big words:

The syncretism expressed by the original "coexist" sticker is offensive to anyone who values that which is true.

It was also smug and condescending--as though those who speak out about the deficiencies of Islam are somehow bellicose, or impolite.

(Daddio: Coexistence and syncretism are not the same thing.)

Patrick McIlheran, fan of the racist Texas Hold 'Em Blogger, decried:

that insufferably smug "coexist" bumper sticker

Rick Esenberg patronized:

But appropriating the symbols of these traditions and assembling them into a command that is probably most often expressed by people who do not follow (or follow loosely) any of them strikes me as patronizing.

The "interesting" (McIlheran's word) Texas Hold 'Em Blogger demonstrated his deft writing skills thusly:

the idiotic DUMBper sticker “Co-Exist”

From Tom McMahon's original defacing of the bumpersticker:

Coexist With The Commies And The Nazis, You Smug Little Twerp!

(Interesting statement, in light of the fact the logo was designed by a Pole and popularized by an Israeli museum.)

And, the one that started it all, Christian Schneider calling the bumpersticker obnoxious:

"COEXIST” (spelled out with various religious symbols) - If some of the followers of the religion represented by the crescent moon “c” on your cute little bumper sticker would stop hijacking planes and blowing up buildings, coexisting would be a little easier.

Why does the Journal Sentinel's McIlheran link to a blogger who compares Islam to Nazism?

The Brawler is referring, of course, to the Texas Hold Em Blogger -- he who called Mexicans (or people he thought were Mexicans) "chihuahuas."

In a post titled "Wonder what their reaction would be," Tex says if the Interfaith Council of Greater Milwaukee didn't like a bumpersticker that equated Islam with Naziism, "I wonder what they would think of this":

Hey Paddy, here's what you wrote after you let Tex skate for his chihuahua comment:

Contrary to the gist of his opponents' claim -- that if I keep DiGaudio on my blog roll, I'm agreeing to an ethnic insult -- I hereby declare this to be my criteria for putting blogs on my Wisconsin blog roll: You're an interesting Wisconsin blogger whom I know about and read with some regularity and whom I think my readers might find interesting. It doesn't imply that I agree in whole or in part with anything particular thing you've written -- how could it, unless I diligently scanned each blog on the roll daily, including comments? I don't: I'm not their editor. However, this does include the proviso that I might yank someone off the roll if they insult other people in a way and to a degree I just can't stomach.

Does this rather explicit declaration that Islam=Nazism (an interpretation supported by reading Tex's blog, which charmingly describes Islam as the Religion of Piece (of arm, of leg, of torso)) constitute something that  "insult(s) other people in a way and to a degree I just can't stomach."

If this doesn't, Paddy what does? Or is this just "stimulating discussion."

Hey McIlheran: How long will we be in Iraq?

On January 30, 2005, Patrick McIlheran said:

West Germany was kept free and safe from a Russian threat far worse than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi through a 44-year watch by American and British troops, and no one proposes that Iraq will need Western troops that long.

Here's what Stephen Biddle, a former adviser to General Petraeus, laid out as a best-case scenario for Iraq. Note: Biddle is a supporter of the current strategy (From the excellent blog Abu Aardvark-- by a guy who, unlike most sources cited by Paddy Mack, actually knows about Iraq and speaks those heathen tongues):

Without getting in to his arguments or my reservations, I just wanted to lay out Biddle's best case scenario as he presented it:  if everything goes right and if the US continues to "hit the lottery" with the spread of local ceasefires and none of a dozen different spoilers happens, then a patchwork of local ceasefires between heavily armed, mistrustful communities could possibly hold if and only if the US keeps 80,000-100,000 troops in Iraq for the next twenty to thirty years.

Patrick: Obviously 30 years isn't 44 years. But it's close -- and far closer than what most Americans thought when we invaded Iraq.

As a supporter of the invasion (despite the admonitions of his pope) and the subsequent occupation, you owe an obligation to your readers to say, specifically. how long you think the U.S. should maintain a significant military presence in Iraq. I mean, if you're going to say people who want out just want to "Cut and run," you clearly need to define how long you think we should be there.

Or, at a minimum, is 20 years too long? Is 30 years too long?

Patrick: please let us know!

Is Archbishop Dolan a "liberal" or "leftist"?

As most visitors to the cheddarsphere know, Seth Zlotocha, the brains behind In Effect, does some of his best work in the comments section of other blogs.

His repartee with John McAdams of the Marquette Warrior blog over the "Coexist" conflagaration is a fine example.

Marquette professor/Wal-Mart apologist McAdams says this in his post:

The simple fact is that the Interfaith Conference lacks any credibility in attacking Sykes, or making any assertions about religious tolerance.

They are simply a bunch of liberals and leftists who dislike Sykes because they don’t like conservatives.

And, in comments, Zlotocha politely cuts McAdams off at the knees. McAdams, meanwhile, backpedals, blows smoke and obfuscates with amazing alacrity:

5 Comments:

Seth Zlotocha said...

Out of curiosity, would you consider Archbishop Timothy Dolan to be just a liberal leftist? I only ask because he's on the Board of Directors for the Interfaith Conference.

9:39 AM

John McAdams said...

He's not a liberal leftist, but the vast majority of the other board members are.

And the agenda of the organization is liberal/leftist.

If you disagree, kindly give me an example of a case where they complained about liberal bias toward conservative Christians.

3:32 PM

Seth Zlotocha said...

If you disagree, kindly give me an example of a case where they complained about liberal bias toward conservative Christians.

So either a religious group publicly complains about liberal bias toward conservative Christians, or they're a leftist group in your book?

The bottom line is that your argument about the Interfaith Conference only taking issue in this case because Sykes is a conservative -- as opposed to being legitimately offended at the bumper sticker and the quoted comments regarding Islam and terrorism -- is pretty weak. After all, if the Interfaith Conference sent its letter simply to take an ideological swipe at Sykes, why didn't they bother to publicize it at all? After all, it was Sykes who advertised the letter to the public, not the Interfaith Conference.

8:53 PM

John McAdams said...

After all, it was Sykes who advertised the letter to the public, not the Interfaith Conference.

In the first place, had Sykes taken it down, that would have been widely publicized. And perhaps the Interfaith Conference would have publicized it after that happened.

However . . . I don't doubt the liberals at the liberals at the Interfaith Conference were genuinely offended.

But of course, since they don't like Sykes, they are pretty much spoiling for something from him to be "offended" about.

9:57 PM

Seth Zlotocha said...

Or maybe they don't like Sykes because he offends them, which is quite a different issue than criticizing someone (privately, no less) simply because you're not in the same ideological boat. After all, they seem to get along with Dolan just fine.

In the first place, had Sykes taken it down, that would have been widely publicized.

Where? On some blogs? Until Sykes published the letter on his blog and, more importantly, used air time to discuss the issue, it wasn't even a blip on the media radar (aside from Tim Cuprisin, it still isn't). If the post would've just disappeared, a few bloggers on the left would've cheered, but that's about it.

And perhaps the Interfaith Conference would have publicized it after that happened.

All actual evidence points to the fact that it's Sykes who's using this incident as a publicity tool, not the Interfaith Conference.

10:37 PM

Is the Interfaith Conference anti-Semitic?

Rightwingers are blasting with both barrels at the Interfaith Council of Greater Milwaukee for having the temerity to ask (note, not demand as some have said) WTMJ to remove an image from Charlie Sykes' blog that equates Islam with Naziism.

Perhaps the most scurrilous attack is the insinuation that the Interfaith Conference is anti-Semitic as it includes the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, and its leader Zufiqir Ali Shah.

Leading this charge is, not surprisingly, Marquette University professor/Wal-Mart apologist John McAdams.

Here's what McAdams says:

Who is Anti-Semitic?

Perhaps the most bizarre thing about the Interfaith Conference statement is the claim that the parody bumper sticker is somehow anti-Semitic. Yet the actions of the Conference raise serious questions. For example:

When the Toledo charity KindHearts was shut down this past February, for raising millions of dollars for Hamas, the group’s leaders got off scott free. One of those leaders was KindHearts’ President, Khaled Smaili. Another was KindHearts’ South Asia Director, Zulfiqar Ali Shah. Unlike Smaili, who has remained virtually silent since the closure, Shah has continued to bask in the spotlight. He now sits in his new digs in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the Religious Director of a large Islamic institution and the toast of the media. Today, the Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee will be sponsoring a Shah talk, taking place at Our Savior’s Lutheran Church.

And further:

. . . Shah’s love for his fellow man was not manifest, when, just a few years prior, in June of 2001, he spoke of a wild conspiracy regarding Jews retaking the Saudi city of Medina. He said, “If we are unable to stop the Jews now, their next stop is Yathrib (The Prophet’s city of Medina), where the Jews used to live until their expulsion by Prophet Muhammad. That’s the pinnacle of their motives.”

You can find further information on Shah here. Local Milwaukee columnists Cary Spivak & Dan Bice raised a variety of questions about Shah in a 2006 article.

But Shah’s group, the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, is a member of the Interfaith Conference!

The simple fact is that the Interfaith Conference lacks any credibility in attacking Sykes, or making any assertions about religious tolerance.

They are simply a bunch of liberals and leftists who dislike Sykes because they don’t like conservatives.

Sykes reprints the attack here.

Oddly, though, neither quote a letter to the Journal Sentinel after the Spice boys ran their hit piece that casts Shah -- who, let's remember, does not face any kind of charges -- in a different light:

Columnists engaged in character assassination

Congratulations to columnists Cary Spivak and Dan Bice for their character assassination of the new religious director of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, Dr. Zulfiqar Shah, through their use of guilt by association and providing quotes out of context ("Questions arise about Muslim scholar," May 19).

Spivak and Bice said that a Saudi imam who made offensive remarks about Jews in 2002 was Dr. Shah's "guest" in 2003. Unfortunately, they didn't clearly explain that Dr. Shah did not know about the offensive remarks before he invited the imam, he categorically condemned the remarks and the invitation was withdrawn.

Spivak and Bice also made reference to KindHearts, whose assets were frozen in February for alleged dealings with Hamas in Palestine. However, Dr. Shah's work with KindHearts related only to relief work in Pakistan for the October 2005 earthquake; neither he nor the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, which indicated that there was nothing of concern about KindHearts in December 2005, knew about KindHearts' alleged dealings with Hamas.

Spivak and Bice also provided inadequate context for Dr. Shah's remark about Jews going to Medina, saying only that "it was a joke in response to a question about Israel." In fact, this was a sarcastic remark by Dr. Shah regarding claims of an extremist Jewish group and its dreams of a Greater Israel between the Nile and Euphrates, which could include Medina.

Again, congratulations.

Ahmed Quereshi

Wauwatosa

(Quereshi is secretary for the Islamic Society)

Maybe Sykes and McAdams should ask Rabbi Jacob Herber, Interfaith board member and spiritual leader of the Congregation Beth Israel, whether he's anti-Semitic.

"Chihuahuas" blogger backs Sykes in bashing Muslims

Wingers came out of the woodwork to support Charlie Sykes as he bravely stood up against the mighty Interfaith Council of Greater Milwaukee and said he was unapologetic in equating Islam with Naziism and Stalinism.

Predictably, one of his biggest defenders was none other than the great Texas Hold Em Blogger, who called Interfaith's request to take down a Muslim-bashing image nothing less than "PC bullying."

It's an odd charge, given if Tex knows from anything  he knows from bullying.

Here's how he might treat you at a store if you speak Spanish to some friends at a store:

I stood in Wal Mart yesterday and listen to a bunch of chattering chihuahuas speaking Mexican until I sick of listening to it and finally said, “You’re in America. Speak English or go back to wherever you came from” and walked away.

Or here's the kind of comment you might expect if you're a blogger who takes issue with him:

From June 30th: FUCK YOU YOU COCKSUCKER. I WILL MEET YOU ANY TIME ANYWHERE .... YOU CAN'T MATCH UP WITH ANYONE, YOU SHIT FOR BRAINS PIECE OF SHIT. COME ON ... PLEASE ... FUCK YOU

And from September 11th: FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON ... YOU GODDAMN LEFTIST PIECE OF SHIT TROLL. FUCK OFF ... I'D HUNT YOU DOWN AND BREAK BOTH YOUR LEGS IF I THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH THE TIME ... MAYBE YOU ARE

The Brawler previously documented Tex's repartee here (and Tex -- quit visiting the Brawler through your stats page -- it lacks dignity).

Strangely, Charlie -- who links to Tex -- didn't give him a shoutout in a column hailing his supporters in his brave stand to defend a religious slur.

Patrick McIlheran calls Tex "sharp" "on-target" and "interesting."

He's clearly interesting.

Coexist?

Elect Louis Butler and make Mark Graul cry

One Wisconsin Now's Cory Liebmann has noted previously that while state Supreme Court justice candidate Michael Gableman claims he isn't partisan, he in fact has quite a history of supporting Republican causes:

• His top operatives are long-time Republican strategists and campaigners
• He donated to and was appointed as a judge by Republican Governor Scott McCallum
• He was appointed as a District Attorney by Republican Governor Tommy Thompson.
• Gableman has almost exclusively given cash to Republicans.
• Gableman was even listed in 2002 as the contact for an Ashland/Bayfield County GOP event.
• Today he appeared on right wing talker Charlie Sykes radio show and said that his favorite U.S. Supreme Court Justice was conservative William Rehnquist.   
• When asked by Sykes which Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice he would be most like Gableman proceeded to list all of the conservatives on the bench.
• And lastly, when asked by Sykes whether he was a conservative, Gableman answered in the affirmative.

On Thursday Liebmann pointed out the latest example of the purportedly nonpartisan Gableman's partisanship: Hiring Mark Graul -- he who directed Mark Green's disastrous gubernatorial campaign and "Ethics R Us" Annette Ziegler's successful supreme court bid.

Given Gableman's propensity for lame and dissembling answers to questions, this makes a certain amount of sense. Who better than Mark Graul, who brazenly lied about getting freebies from Abramoff's organization, to be on board?

Should we expect Gableman to stonewall questions about his background, not show up for interviews and generally behave in the shifty manner of  Graul's past clients? SHould we expect Graul to call Butler an "asshole," the term he used to describe Steve Kagen this past January over at Boots and Kittens Sabers?

Kagen can’t seem to decide if he wants people to think he’s really that big of an asshole, or he’s just a regular ol’ liar.  Based on this episode, I chose all of the above. 

(Didn't Owen blame the decline of civility over there on liberals?)

The hiring of Graul also leads the Brawler to believe we should expect renewed cries of voter fraud and other voter suppression efforts from Republicans in 2008. For Republicans it's almost a matter of necessity. Beating Butler -- and electing Scott Walker over Lena Taylor -- is going to be difficult if Milwaukeeans turn out to vote. A way to prevent that is to raise bogus accusations of phantom voters -- "Joe Blow's address is really a Vienna beef stand" -- and raise hell at polling stations.

All of which Republicans have done here before.

And recall, Graul led the Bush campaign in 2004, when the state GOP raised a hue and a cry about voter fraud, no doubt in coordination with the White House. Also recall that more muted cries were raised prior to the 06 elections, when Graul directed the Green campaign. Was Graul involved in either of those efforts? Brawler don't know. But he was on the scene. (Maybe the Journal Sentinel should ask -- or indeed, actually make an effort to investigate the state GOP's voter suppression activities.)

And recall Graul's whining over Doyle vetoing Voter ID. From a September 2006 story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

In Wisconsin, Republicans believe that Doyle's pre-election veto in 2003 of a GOP-backed election bill requiring voters to present a photo ID resulted in more Democratic votes in '04. Post-election investigations did find fraudulent votes were cast, but didn't find nearly enough to change the outcome.

"I do think it made a difference (in '04) that we had a governor who vetoed election reform. . . . That in and of itself was probably the most helpful thing Jim Doyle did for John Kerry," said Mark Graul, who ran Bush's Wisconsin campaign and now runs the campaign of Doyle's opponent, Republican Mark Green. Green supports the photo ID plan.

Yes, St. Steven Biskupic said there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud. But that's not going to stop the GOP -- or their media allies -- from leveling such accusations again.