Brew City Brawler

Why do white people get so uppity about race?

The Recess Supervisor is arguably the most incisive observer of state politics on the scene. That's why it's disappointing to see that when it comes to discussing race in America he sinks to Republican cant.

In a comment string following his post blasting Obama's A More Perfect Union speech, RS says:

Race is a much bigger issue among blacks than whites. The average white person on the street could give a flip about someone's skin color. It will be so until blacks are willing to accept that much of what has occurred within their communities in the last 30 years is almost exclusive their own fault. It is the way in which inner-city culture (blacks and whites both) celebrates violence, misogyny, drugs, and crime, the way in which it discourages responsibility, encourages dependence and victimization, that holds people in those communities back.

Black leaders embrace race as an issue because without it, they can't use victimization as an excuse for the many perils that affect poor, mostly black communities.

****

We would all like to get to a race-neutral society. In all honesty, I think whites are much closer to that target than blacks (though there are obvious exceptions on both sides, including the emerging black middle class). To get there also means that black leaders will have to embrace personal responsibility and accountability instead of excusing the history of negative behavior displayed by economically-disadvantaged black communities and encouraging them to use whites and government as an excuse for their lot in life.

Given that RS prides himself on independent thinking, it's odd to see him regurgitate GOP talking points wholesale.

The contention that "the average white person on the street could give a flip about someone's skin color" is dubious at best. Joe Whiteboy might think he doesn't give a flip about someone's skin color. But there are plenty of examples of differential treatment based on skin color that suggest otherwise.

Indeed, blacks and whites have different perspectives on how blacks are treated compared to whites. According to a 2000 survey by the New York Times, 45% of blacks said they were treated less fairly than whites in restaurants, bars, theaters or other entertainment places. Only 10% of whites saw that. And 66% of blacks said they were treated less fairly than whites in dealings with police, such as traffic accidents. Only 25% of whites saw that to be the case. Also, 58% of whites say white and black people have equal chances of getting ahead; 39% of blacks agreed.

Do whites have superior line of sight as to how blacks are treated? Are blacks just making this up?

The statement that "much of whas has occurred within their communities in the last 30 years is almost exclusive(ly) their own fault"  ignores too many other factors -- shrinking taxbase, deindustrialization, white flight, etc. -- to be taken seriously. Consider this: In 1970, median African-American family income in Milwaukee was 19 percent above the national black average, according to U.S. Census Bureau. In 2000 it was 23 percent below. What accounted for that? Did Milwaukee blacks get disproportionately shiftless? Was it hip hop's fault? The Brawler would suggest the more likely culprit was the hollowing out of the city's industrial base.

Economics isn't everything, a point made by William Julius Wilson, Cornel West and others. But saying "culture" is the underlying cause of the state of the inner city is a major stretch.

Indeed, William Julius Wilson demonstrated in "When Work Disappears" that even  in "poverty tracts" in Chicago, that the vast majority of poor urban blacks shared the "work ethic" that many white onlookers are quick to say they lack (and instead trot out the "dependency" and "victimization" cards). Fully 70.5% percent said hard work was important to getting ahead. If money and benefits were the same, 80.8% said they would want to work vs. the 16.3% that said they would prefer aid (for whites the split was 87.7% to 10.7%). (Note: The relevant polling was conducted in 1987. The numbers likely have moved since then. But even if they moved down, the Brawler would suspect that a majority of the group would share the attitudes expressed.)

Real quickly, I am not sure on what he bases his contention that whites are closer to some ideal of race neutrality than blacks. As far as his reductionist analysis of unnamed black leaders, their motivation and their seemingly awesome grip over their flock: plenty talk about personal responsibility, getting a job, etc. I'm quite sure Jeremiah Wright did so. And if RS would look, I'm sure he'd find cases of them attacking some of the manifestations of the "culture" that concern him (Al Sharpton going after hip-hop lyrics, for instance).

Long story short: I think placing the onus for ongoing racial strife in the U.S. on blacks is misplaced, if not bizarre. Fault lies on both "sides" and I think it's a bit early for whites to pat themselves on the back.

All that said, the Brawler would want to note that the aforementioned NYT survey found 58% of whites and 51% of blacks said race relations were generally good in 2000. Ten years earlier those numbers were 43% and 33%. In 2000, 78% of whites and 58% of blacks said there was progress in getting rid of racial discrimination; in 1992 those numbers were 53% and 29%. For all the Brawler's liberal handwringing, he agrees with the people seeing things improving. But that doesn't mean complacency is an option.

For those white folks who want Obama to scold black folks

A number of conservative commentators, near and far, all doubtless possessing keen insights into black America, have blasted Barack Obama's race speech. One of the main complaints: that Obama failed to criticize black folk in sufficiently strong language. He didn't go Cosby enough for their tastes.

The Brawler suggests they've been bamboozled. Because Obama has gone into Cosby territory. From Newsweek's Jonathan Alter:

But consider what happened late last month in Beaumont, Texas, when I covered Obama speaking before an African-American audience. A woman asked about health care and Obama explained how, for the first time in human history, thousands of obese children, many of them black, were being diagnosed with adult-onset diabetes—a disease that is killing millions and helping bankrupt the health-care system. He told the crowd that kids couldn't keep on "drinking eight sodas a day," ...  "I know some of y'all got that cold Popeye's [chicken] out for breakfast. I know," Obama said with a smile. He continued: "That's why y'all laughing. You can't do that. Children have to have proper nutrition. That affects also how they study, how they learn in school … It's not good enough for you to say to your child, 'Do good in school,' and then when that child comes home, you got the TV set on, you got the radio on, you don't check their homework, there is not a book in the house, you've got the videogame playing." Instead of being jeered, he was cheered wildly.

I don't know. That is one satisfying example of a black man telling other black people how to act. The Brawler can only assume that Sykes is tracking down the audio to run on his show.

The Brawler suspects that Obama may make comments like this again -- and when he does he'll get denounced by conservative critics claiming he's being duplicitous.

Meanwhile, the Brawler awaits McCain's speech denouncing his fellow crackers  sending religious bigot John Hagee's book to the top of Wal-Mart's bestseller list and disproportionately supporting a political party that led us into a ruinous fiscal policy and a disastrous war in Iraq.

Will Mike Gableman show up for his Journal Sentinel online chat?

Mike Gableman, the right wing candidate for the State Supreme Court, is scheduled to hold an online chat at the Journal Sentinel on Wednesday. Will he show up?

It's not an idle question.

When clients of Mark Graul are in for tough questioning, they either go into bunker mode (Annette Ziegler) or just don't show up for interviews (Mark Green). That's some consultery right there.

Given that the Gableman campaign has managed to shoot itself in the foot with an attack ad against Louis Butler that was widely slammed as being willfully deceptive (it cost Gableman an endorsement) and was decried by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for resembling race-baiting, one might suspect Gableman could face some tough questions.

Or a smart lawyer could try to query him on issues of substance and philosophy, areas in which Gableman seems reluctant to engage Butler.

Meanwhile, behold how  Butler tackled a question from a right-wing talking point regurgitator with skill and grace:

Q: Alana Derpinghaus of Taus - Back when you were a public defender in Milwaukee, you earned the nickname "Loophole Louie" for your creative legal ideas. Do you bring that same creativity to the bench as a judge? Why or why not?

A: Louis Butler - Alana, thank you for your question. The job of an attorney is to advocate for their client to the best of their ability. As a judge, or a justice, my job is to interpret and apply the law in a fair and impartial manner. In making those determinations, judges are involved in dispute resolution. Our job is to hear the problem that the parties bring to court and to apply the law to the facts of a given case. My process for doing that, is first to apply the U.S. Constitution, then the Wisconsin Constitution, which has a long and glorious history, third, to apply state statutes, then our common law, then finally our court's prior precedent. Our goal is justice.

Granted, Gableman presumably has some flexibility in picking and choosing his questions. But why answer any when you can just choose to not show up?

Hey Journal Sentinel: Why did Charlie Sykes get "voter fraud" report before the mayor?

Dear Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Daniel Bice had an interesting column the other day about how both the police chief and the mayor were blindsided by the release of an 18-month old report on voter fraud that -- weakly -- made the case WI should adopt voter ID laws and dump same-day registration.

It didn't answer the question of why the report was leaked to Charlie Sykes and his apparatchiks.

Patrick McIlheran, demonstrating he's more a copy editor than reporter at heart, hails the leak as "whistleblowing." Which might be true if it exposed wrongdoing by MKE leaders or revealed something that the good people of Milwaukee didn't already know (that there were problems with the 2004 election).

The report's stealthy release didn't do either of those things. What it did do is keep the meme of extensive voter fraud alive .... even if the facts reported are old news and don't demonstrate a compelling need to overhaul the state's election laws. (And to what extent do we trust the judgment of investigators who say -- with a straight face -- that there was a question whether Gwen Moore would be elected to Congress?)

The report's release does fit in with the RPW's efforts to raise the specter of voter fraud -- often based on zero or crap evidence, It's done so in the past two election cycles. And none other than the Brawler predicted they would do so just in time for the County Executive race. Is the Brawler a prophet? No! He just knows a pattern when he sees one.

Some questions you might want to ask:

1. Was there any contact between the RPW/RPW surrogates and the people who leaked the report?

2. Was there any contact between Scott Walker/his surrogates and the people who leaked the report?

3. Who actually wrote the recommendations in the report?

4. Was anyone given a sneak peek of the report?

5. Why the timing of the report?

The Brawler suspects the people of Milwaukee would be interested in finding out whether their tax dollars funded a report that, through the cooperation of some rogue cops and the RPW, was aimed at making it more difficult for people in Milwaukee to vote.

But that's just a hunch.

The ABCs of Milwaukee's Right Wing

It's 2008 and an election year. That means the full force of the Milwaukee's Stupider Media -- the bloggers, the columnists, the yakkers -- are going to be upon you. 

Here's a handy A-Z guide on what you can expect to hear from them. Because to Milwaukee's right wing, words mean what they want them to mean!

A is for affirmative action. V. bad -- except when it gets Patrick McIlheran a job as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's conservative columnist!

B is for Bush Derangement Syndrome. A condition marked by the belief that George Bush is a good, if not great president,when nearly 7o percent of the country disapproves of the job he's doing. In extreme cases, sufferers will suggest that it's liberals who actually are alienated from America.

C is for Catholic. Against abortion and in favor of vouchers. As for following the Vatican's opposition to the war and support for labor and liberal economic social policies and dialogue with Islamic peoples (including Iran) ... not so much. You can adhere to the Vatican's opposition to the death penalty so long as you mention that (quietly) only once a year.

D is for Democrats. See N is for Nazis.

E is for Evangelicals. S0 long as they mind their place -- dutifully voting for establishment Republicans -- they're fine. Should they try to push one of their own as a presidentail candidate -- Mike Huckabee -- well, that's just unseemly.

F is for France. Because France was right about this whole Iraq War/occupation not being a good idea, they deserve to have abuse heaped upon them. (Neglect to mention that French troops actually are in Afghanistan.) Boycott all things French, including words (laissez faire doesn't count).

G is for Government. Governments that seek to protect the environment, protect workers and administer health care are big bad nannygestapo states. Governments that engage in illegal surveillance of its citizenry, mislead their people into a war and never-ending occupation of another  country and actively seek to push people off the voting rolls are called limited governments.

H is for humor. Retard jokes? Hilarious! Irony? That's hard!

I is for Iraq. As long as we stay there, we're winning. No matter how many people (our own and others) are killed or wounded, no matter how many hundreds of billions go down the drain, no matter how much it exacerbates regional tensions or inspires hatred of the US, we're winning. What are we trying to accomplish? We'll tell you that later!

J is for journalism.  "The smarter the journalists are, the  better off society is. [For] to a degree, people read the press to inform themselves -- and the better the teacher, the better the student body."  Warren Buffet said that. It's unclear whether he knew Jessica McBride teaches journalism at UW-M.

K is for Ku Klux Klan. A white supremacist group. A member of this group might call a group of Latinos "chihuahuas" (particularly if it was a bunch of women and kids) and inform them they should learn English or leave -- as did a prominent Wisconsin right wing blogger.

L is for Liberal. See N is for Nazis.

M is for McBride, Jessica. See here.

N is for Nazis. The political party that, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, led Germany from 1933 to 1945. It was responsible for the bloodiest war in Europe's history and its rein of terror was marked by the Holocaust, the deliberate extermination of six million Jews and many more others deemed as "unfit." Because liberals (i.e. Democrats) see an activist role for government, this puts them on a continuum with the Nazi Party.

O is for Once Upon a Time. A fictitious past that conservatives frequently hark back to in advancing arguments. For example, Owen Robinson believes that in "once upon a time" people grew old with dignity -- and without the indignity of the welfare state. The fact is, of course, that until big gummint came along, old age mean impoverishment for most working people. History is hard!

P is for Pinochet, Augusto. Chilean general who ousted the democratically elected Salvador Allende in a military coup in 1973 and ruled the country until 1990. Even though he was a dictator whose regime killed thousands of people (including the American Ronni Moffitt, who, along with the actual target Orlando Letelier, who was killed in a car bomb assassination in Washington DC in 1976), some righties think he's OK -- or at least his sins are mitigated -- because he instituted a variety of "free market" reforms. The fact that his economic policies proved disastrous and were often reversed is seldom noted.

Q is for quicheoise. A term of opprobrium for Madison lefties that was invoked by Charlie Sykes in a recent column. The coinage earned him all sorts of huzzahs from other right wing bloggers. Obviously -- as with virtually all other bon mots or insights made by this man -- he lifted it. Nothing necessarily wrong with that. But the Brawler wonders where Sykes get the stones to questions some peoples' manliness when he admitted recently that he was incapable of shoveling out his driveway so his car would get through. Charlie, it's not the length of your driveway that matters -- a real man can always carve a path through the snow!

R is for Robinson, Owen. Proprietor of the rightwing blog Boots and Sabers. He doesn't know much about history. He thinks the only things Justice Louis Butler has to run on are his incumbency and his race. He booted off a commenter over dubious charges of sockpuppetry. He posted a retard joke on his blog and said it was OK because his mom had been a special ed teacher. So you can see why he's the keynote speaker for Green Lake County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner on March 2! See also here and here.

S is for Sykes, Charlie. The latest issue of Milwaukee Magazine summed it up nicely with some quotes from yesteryear.  "Syked Out:“Away from his professional cronies … his books and his daily blows against the status quo, [WTMJ-AM radio host Charlie] Sykes is an isolated man.” (July 2000). “A man of immense talent and ambitions, yet unsure what to do next in life, a man who has gained the respect and fear of the power elite while failing to win the long-term loyalty of even a single friend.” (h/t Whallah!) The Brawler would add that the man seems to get only pettier -- and lazier (want to know what Chuck's going to talk about tomorrow? read conservative blogs the night before) -- with the passage of time.

T is for T-Shirt. Few things exercise Patrick McIlheran more than kids wearing Che T-shirts. Paddy: Don't worry! You can get a Pinochet t-shirt if you want!

U is for urban. Adj. Scary.

V is for voter fraud. There's never been any evidence of organized voter fraud in Milwaukee (it never had the sort of machine that would drive such abuse, for one, at least in the Twentieth Century), but that won't stop the state GOP and its fellow travelers from raising this charge in election cycle after election cycle -- or advocating Voter ID to address an illusory problem. Meanwhile, it will never occur to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to investigate GOP-instigated voter suppression.

W is for Walker, Scott. The Milwaukee County executive whose strongest base of supprt may be with right wing pundits who live outside Milwaukee County. Ma Brawler, meanwhile, thinks he's a weasel.

X is for Xoff. A prominent member of a group known to the right wing as the "hate left." The evidence of this group's hate? Its tireless effort to poke holes in the bogus arguments of the right. (However, equating Muslims with Nazis is not hate -- it's just freedom of expression!)

Y is for yacht. Yacht is one of many many words that F. Scott Fitzgerald could not spell. Right-wing blogger and attorney Rick Esenberg is known to make a spelling mistake two, misspelling Favre -- twice! -- in one recent post.  According to the formidable logic typical of Jessica McBride (and, frankly, not a few other denizens of Milwaukee's right), this means Rick Esenberg wrote The Great Gatsby.

Z is for Ziegler, Annette. Ethics -- indeed, professionalism -- are for suckers!

(This column, particularly the intro, was "inspired" in part by a recent Patrick McIlerhan column, addressed by Mike Plaisted here.)

Bob LaFollette, Fascist

So saith the National Review's resident Simpsons expert Jonah Goldberg in his long-long-long awaited epic Liberal Fascism.

Specifically, Goldberg identifies the Progressive movement as a sort of  "Christian fascism." Who knew food purity laws or curbs on child labor were fascist?

Sadly No! has been doing yeoman's work in blogging this dreadful tome page by page.

Jonah on Progressive fascism (and, as a commenter notes, this is actually a rather hard left critique):

The Brawler eagerly awaits Patrick "liberals are on a continuum with the Nazis" McIlheran's incisive review of Liberal Fascism!

Update: Misspelling in headline corrected!

Did the WPRI poll Hispanics for its illegal immigrant benefit survey?

The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, the state's leading right wing "thank tank," published a survey claiming that vast majorities of Wisconsinites opposed illegal immigrants getting drivers licenses and receiving in-state tuition at UW. Folks were narrowly split on the question of whether illegal immigrant children should be allowed to attend public schools. For what it's worth, 62% of Republicans oppose this idea.

The survey, clearly designed to create wedge issues for a desperate GOP as it heads into a dark 2008, can be seen here.

The Brawler's big question, after looking at the survey, was: Did the WPRI interview any Hispanics? Because while the survey breaks out how whites, blacks, men, women, Republicans, Democrats. liberals and conservatives in a variety of cities responded, the survey findings elide the reaction of one significant group: Hispanics.

Which raises two possibilities in the Brawler's mind:

1. WPRI saw fit not to interview Hispanics. This would, of course, invalidate the entire survey. The Brawler would not put this past the WPRI.
2. WPRI did not disclose how Hispanics responded because they did not like how Hispanics responded. The Brawler suspects that Hispanics might -- stress "might" -- have less of a problem with illegal immigrants getting drivers licenses, receiving in-state tuition at UW or educating their kids at public schools.

Why would WPRI want to hold that info close? Four reasons, none ruling out the other, off the top of the Brawler's head:

1. The data could be used as a motivator for pro-immigrant groups.
2. The data could inform politicians that an increasingly influential group of voters, i.e. Hispanics, are more liberal on immigration issues than the majority. This might encourage politicians with an eye to the future. or  politicians in districts with growing Hispanic populations, to to moderate their views. Not good for the GOP!
3. If the data shows that Hispanics split from the majority on this issue, Republicans can't realistically oppose bennies in the name of speaking for the majority and at the same time reach out to Hispanics. Who already are bailing on the party as it kowtows to its nativist wing.
4. The right wing jabberers could pick up the Hispanic reaction and use it as an excuse to tee off on Hispanics, regardless of origin or place of birth. Can't you just hear Texas Hold Em Blogger complain about "chihuahuas" who want to jam their culture and language down or throat while they're sucking up our bennies? Actions like this make Republicans look bad -- and WPRI realizes this.

Or it could be something else. The Brawler confesses he's not omniscient.

That's why the WPRI needs to fess up as to whether it interviewed Hispanics for this survey. Because there's absolutely zero evidence that it did.

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.

Ike and "Stupid" Republicans

The Brawler loves this quote (Brawler's bold):

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.⁵ Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Who wrote that? Some member of the hate left?

Of course not. As the headline of the post suggests, it was none other than Dwight Eisenhower, writing to his brother Ed in November 1954.

(Sadly, the same letter celebrates the ouster of the popular Mossadeq in Iran and the installation of the Shah -- a move that long term, uh, hasn't served us well.)

Believing that the federal government has a positive role to play? In favor of social security? In favor of unemployment insurance? In favor of labor laws?

In Lying Charlie Sykes lingo, Ike would be considered a RINO now (though the Brawler favors casting a cold, like liquid-nitrogen cold, eye on farm programs).

Widening schism between big business and SE WI movement conservatives?

Is a schism looming between Wisconsin big business and southeastern Wisconsin movement conservatives? The Brawler poses that as an actual, not a rhetorical, question.  And the answer could, in fact, be no. But it's a question motivated by a few observations over the past week.

1. The fact that Barack Obama is leading the presidential field in fundraising among Wisconsin business executives and that the three leading Ds are ahead of Rudy Giuliani(Milwaukee Business Journal, subscription only.) True, this is not a powerful indicator as it no doubt reflects some GOP biz leaders trying to figure out where to park their bucks now that Tommy! is out of the race (though one would have to question the investment decisions of execs who contributed to Tommy!). And of course it's early and the cash money could (will?) move to the bad guys quickly and in overwhelming force, etc. But, still: interesting.
2. The fact that the business community appears to support a sales tax to revive the KRM -- something that Charlie Sykes was griping about on Friday. (Again, the Biz Journal.)
3. And, of course, the fact that leaders of some of the state's biggest businesses are calling for universal health coverage financed through payroll taxes -- a move that outraged Ol Lady Owen Robinson, among others.

In the past, Cory Liebmann and Paul Soglin (and the Brawler) have pointed out dubious strategic decisions of the WMC and suggested its ideological zealotry was driving a wedge between it and the everyday concerns of its constituents. Are these contradictions heightening?

Dunno. But it's an iron law of journalism that three data points make a trend. And we got three data points here.

Again, observation #1 could change, almost literally overnight. And, to be sure, the right likes to periodically take issue with the machinations of big business, particulary (and correctly) on issues such as subsidies, etc. But Nos. 2 and 3 are, it seems to the Brawler (and he could be mistaken) examples where the muckity mucks are taking positions that are more at variance than usual with some deeply held positions of the movement right.

Is more to come?